














































* ° [ 
* -o. v * 

* rl v \T) 




** ** ,0 i 

^ cr 



^ ouo- ^ 0 .,, ^ 

<^ <0 o’*"' V 

A A 'i^fA-o A V ■ 

^ v ;®H^, vv : 

J ° V> 'V ° 

A >, v^BPa .v ^ 

> ."■“.'% "‘'. 0 Aal*.A 



° * ‘ " V v ^\* *•'..'* * < 0 v 'A '° • * * iA ’v 

O « o „ *<J> (NV . L < 8 ^ «<Jv 0 0 " 0 <* 

*T> * _c-^N\ . <* 'T* (, * O <1 <> • «-wo. «* 

. «** cr 


,4q 




V *LVL'* c\ 

* .voi 2 v. %. 4 > . 

A V ^ : 

* aV o 

4 x 9 > ^ 

* A 




* O M 0 ° \0 


^ A ^ 


vA 


\ x 


> v , *i^L> A 

‘ A 

1 ^9 

-V’ ' / d' , 

A % °. * a. « 

A As '• . » * A 

/■ .iv. A 

■p < > % * v 

‘ V* • 





v 0° 
v s ^ A * ‘ * ‘ 

v, 4 * ♦* '* 



• s s V 

*> ^f/;w^< 7 " a* Ai* °# ^ 'y ’ 4 v v »> ’^£ym&r *% <L' 

, v o '••»" A <> *'.. ** < 0 V ^ 

x A c t ' # * . ^ V c o W o ^ V . t ' ^ 4 1 

0 > V ♦ i^/TT/Z^, t, 0 4N ^ ^SA\n , ^k' / * T. \J * 

» K •< vT^ 0 •* 0 ^ 


^ ^ A> ^ 

* # ■» <A 





.. . ^ \ V'*”"** < 

v A^k% < V>. ,a° A«‘a°A ^... , V % ^ 


■* o 



^ ^ r. * 4 ,o 


* ^7 <> o 1 

* <i v • 



• A * A 



• <£o c^ 

: ^ v 


/ A ; .M?.* 


U * 5; °° A 0 ' ^ *‘" 1 * 


S° ^ 0 *V V C 

>0 ^ ‘ 

°* A° ^ 

< V A> 

4.' % 



.v - ... .. <, ,g <! ' *-s, -«.'.• .4 <. 

n V ,vu 4 v ,<S> o 0 " 0 ^ rA . 1 » »* *^r> ( (J> f oM. < 

C U ,VA^% o > ^ C° o / ‘ 




o V 



A 



'. ^-j-.A * 


o \ 0 vV -' 

* fv\i \\\vy ■* ^ t > “■ * yy ////yd> f v ’ 1. v ^ > t^ii \\\vs^ ' ^r *. «• 

V .. ° 4 - '"■" , 4 ° v *■•’• A <v *AT’ . 0 ° v *.,,• 

v ■ ^ 4 VvA ^ A A * °' v> V % t AA, A , 0 ^ A * > V V 

a a .wv. ,<■ 

. A A, ; -^fl!P* ; AA : -^^*° A A °!mw: AA '• 

\' ^ r * s A° °^> '°“ ,! ^ <A 54 A A <* v -..> .0 

% o “ 0 , r5>. r^v .!.<«. .V .o»«. *<« ^.V . 1 / s , A*' . o « o . y £i> A ii« 


°A **' ^ 



/> A 
A*V 


A A 

r ^ & 
S r'.V V 



> e,1 ’\^ - 4 * 

% . v ^ 




V >. A v A 
* *■« 
r ^ v • 



• A A 

1 'S't, 


■♦ A A. °. ‘ 

‘ .s' <. *'TTs '’ ,&*■ A,, '" ° • • < ■ .. 

A c 0 w 0 -9 ry • 1 1 e * ^o r, 0 N 0 + ^, 

l“l> • ^c^N\ ^ *P ry . t />>>, -r O • c^v^V ^ ^ 


* a^*^A 

.* A ^ 


* 0 " 0 A 0 

c\ ,9 **•«- A 

^vp A /aVa % At, .A 

-sm: %■■& 



O \ 0 

' ^ v> <• 

p ^ 

^ 0N 0- .* 

v' . > ;,v:/, <^ ■ , 

^ A ♦. 



' A N A . 

,. c°‘ A 

w +M A 

O 

0 4 O^ 

N -O.^ *» 

A -K o_ A „ 

K 9 ' 1 * A ^ * 0 " 0 
> \> t A> 1 % <A <9 


0 ^ • L ' s -* ^o o °AA * ^ 

0 ° • -r^SNv -*■ 




A ^ ^ A 

* <A 4 '-'A/s 4 ,0' 'o 

A v , 0 * o „ <j» (A , t <». 

A ^ C° °o 

: A 0 < 



,4 c> 

> > ^<v V) 


•/ A/^-’\A 

A • \> AV' 





o^ * ° « o 9 ,0 ^ * » , 1 * < 

A «0 V A7' ^ V V 

' A ,4* .VIsV* ^ a4 

* aV«\ -» o A 

A ^ ^ ^ 

4 <A A A) 





4 o^ 

AA"^° V .A A, 

•- ^ A v .*<sa®i'. a a*' 



A “ 


^ ♦^T'.'.* ,G 


\ r . ^ ' • • 5 
► f 0 » G 

A .-T'-CVn <“ *P 


. rM ^. **# 

♦ „A ^ 0 *^5?p ;> ' 4^ v A 

'o # x ^ A 

J> 0 0 " 0 -» '^s 

o ^r<Vv <<* ^ 


* o 








<S- v 

o *- 0 

V °^ *° 

V * Y # °* o <9 * 

* .m Al ^ cy * 

- o^ cS 


^ '.'<r'£ v x «.v y , ’■> « 

A <\. 'o. ,* (? As A „- 0 A A 

• *■ ' 9 f 0 ^ c 0 " ° * ^ A^ I ' » A> 

* ^0< -V 5 ^; •' 



^«3* 



VAA' A V-’* /> ^ ''*^‘ </ A \''AAy > % - * ;v, • 

• V* :Jfe V* A: V* /tift: \/ :&\ XA \A 

«>«* 
Ov ^ 



v*0^ 



^ q* 





V a** * 

VV ’ 

a>"A o L f///^S<^ * AtP- »< 

o. *a. S ‘ a * 'o. *" .&* A> vtct* a 

<V # i f « ^ qV 0*0 r - * ^ t / 5 

'* v^ . C o A * 

As V . ykmraCjfc * M Or 

& q 


«A V>* 

. As V 


^ s 


^s « 
v* o> 


(A -* O A A* O A/V'V^''A * A 'A 

* A s •xKS.* A x ^ o vICaf * A>, 

F 

* >, 0° ‘ 

- -i oV > .'| o’. ^ A o' 

\0 ^ 

v 0- ^ 

o ^ n ^ & ** 

« / 1 A° A? 

.V .... ^ 

«fW; ^s s - %fW° 
v a?* a ^ •a2SS^* ^ 

* .<A A) *77',' a 

A 





t * A 


c\ ,<)• ,•-'. *> v' , • •». ^b. .0^ 

T a A^ ^ ,A, A * (P ^ x *0 V 

^Vc^ ^rfssSS&o - 


A ^ ■« 

u» 


• °o -*r;,-’ ^0' ^ 

A ,*v% A 


AA 


<r 


A V *A « 
\y ^ * 


\'*oVo> V ~ 

+ > V A A' A> A’ 

A* A V *®S2 Al° V'rv A * 

W .'SM 0 , A A 

° 

’ A v Ax\ 


^ 0 A. *- 
•’ A - . 


^ * 9 N 


* A -■ *5s 

■a. v Ai. 

9 ,G V ^ ♦ 


- ^ r# A A 

<y 


o 

,>■ .... 

Ar ' * . s * A <* 'o • * * ,< 

,° .*j^!.. °o A A c° AAvA 

o > • ^ 0 

« -<j5 q<v : w^°° ^ q* ™ /;i ^. , 

.A,^.. A. ,a.A>a\ /.®. A /.vvA A 

o A'V -VSB© V o. ,A :MAo a 

v\ v a> °ww^: 

J A o h/JsAA * «? A> 



° V A- 


^ A ^v/s 4 / 

y 0 N o t t 6 <0. 

0 •-«*■'. °o A .‘i^- -e 

* ■ > b !?■ .' 

• \0 vv 

> V ^ ° 

v‘‘^'A° A'* 

* ^ 






o V 




A 0 < 




• c^ ^rs - 1 ^ 

^ <t? • 

<l v ^ -> 

, ^ c o>- ,A“% "o o “’ ^ 

■ , ^ A •- 


jA*. 


• W/M , ■ o *° A -3S|A s “ A 0 «- . 

A'-A-’a° .. v*.A’ - A A .... „.. 

*> «,v' ,'4,’i:. A A *’ 

AA :i«t A A • 

o a >"> o w%?vvtf * A v/> 

* <V <?* a Vs/ * V °^ * 

' A *'o.*A A ^ ' . .. 5 v- ^ 

A ./ t - l A ^ f o 






A q 


v % 


A> a^ ? aWa c o ^ x- 1 ^ * 

Vv Z^^Mzl\ l " *A V 

• A'P- ^ O O * AF“rv 

fe A v o ^ALiliJA^ > A V V^ A . o// 8S Vtf «b 

.0^ As ATYs 4 A <A .G v As s 4 A 

rvV o N a A & l I 6 ^. rs V 0 W O A 4 ^ U I 0 ■O' I 

0 .°JW% °0 > ^ C° •^555Nir # °0 y*Jff&L* %r C ( 


<r 


A A 
* A °A 

A/ AJ* v 





>A 



-* A. •! 
a A. °; 

^ ® / 1 # A® * 0 N 0 

'V a0^ aal% q v- 

• <^P ^ ^ ^ * 

♦ <*/ O 

sK 




ky >» 
' 4+ 


>o J ^ ^ 0 ' ° * f 0 " 

y • o r\ o v *$••/■ 


o 
° l 

* V ^ °.' / ^' ; gi v 4 -a. v A, - 

A <* 'O . * * < 0 V Aq *' . . s 

4 y . w * »„ <A 0 ^ c 0 N ° •» As 

t « ■r C. B .r^A . ^ O 


° ^ Q 

A o 


4 ‘ ** ^ • 
A*A *». 


<A 'o. A .< 

As 


* cP 'A j 

/ <y a. v-ww v ^ 
A As *-AA V A 

.A . •'.’*. 


Q V 0 N 0 ^ 
i • _r^Nv ^ ^ O 


















. > 








' 





ONGRESS 


: |§p 



v: 















SC= 


AUTOMATION 

AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: 
INSIDE VIEWS 

Edited by Suzanne E. Thorin 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 
1986 




































TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Overviews 


Computerization at the Library of Congress: The First Twenty Years, 

by Charles Goodrum and Helen Dalrymple.1 

Computers, Management and the Future, by Robert Zich.3 

Bibliographic Control 

Past Imperfect: Retrospective Conversion by Fiat, by Linda Arret.5 

Automation and LCSH, by Mary Lou Miller.8 

Serials Automation: The Users' Perspective, 

by Linda Bartley and Linda Miller.9 

Music: Online At Last, by Catherine Garland.11 

Visual Materials Online, by Richard Thaxter.14 

CJK: Chinese/Japanese/Korean Cataloging, by Fred Protopappas.16 

COPICS: A Milestone in Library Automation, by Brent Kendrick.18 

Collections Delivery and Control 

Automated Collections Control, By Virginia Vitucci.20 

Automated Book Paging, by Maurice Sanders.21 

The Automated Charge File, by Cassandra Allen.22 

Travelin' Books, by Steven Herman, Diane Nester & Anthony Padua.23 

Reference Services and Research Strategies 

LOCIS and the Encyclopedia Plan, by Thomas Mann.25 

Subject Access in the LOCIS Environment, by Sarah Pritchard.27 

Catalog Conundrums: A User's View, by Stanley Goldberg.30 

Electrifying Obsession, by Lee Avdoyan.33 

Computers and Copyright: The Automation of Intellectual Property Records, 

by Eric Zengota.34 

LOCIS-Learners and LOTOS-Eaters, by Judith Farley.35 

Training By the Numbers, by Margaret Morrison.36 

The New Reference Librarian, by Louis Drummond.38 


v 



























The New Technologies 


The Optical Disk Print Pilot Program at the Library of Congress, 

by Audrey Fischer.41 

The Non-Print Project of the Optical Disk Pilot Program, 

by Elizabeth Betz Parker.43 

The Future Is Now, by Ellen Z. Hahn.45 

Computer Readable Collections, by Victoria Reich.46 

Copyright Enters the Information Age, by Susan A. Robinson.47 

Miscellany 

Microcomputers in the Congressional Research Service, by William A. Cox.49 

Inquiry Status and Information System (ISIS), by Brenda Wesner.51 

Electronic Mail and Its Uses, by Barbara J. Finfrock.52 

Shelflist Service and eMAIL, by Cynthia J. Johanson.53 

Automated Bibliographies: Still Waiting, by Marguerite Bloxom.54 

HLAS: The Road To Automation, by Alfreda H. Payne.55 

The Automated Pamphlet Project, by James W. Gilreath.56 


vi 
















PREFACE 


Automation—the word evokes challenge and excitement on one hand, and 
anxiety and trepidation, on the other. Few would deny that automation is 
responsible for a continuing revolution in the library profession. It is for 
this reason that the 1984 LCPA Executive Committee decided to make automation the 
theme of its first special publication. Fostered by two subsequent executive 
committees and by its editor, Suzanne E. Thorin, the work will amuse, inform, 
challenge and stimulate you. If it then should cause a new dialogue on the 
subject, our original purpose will have been richly achieved. 

The LCPA Executive Committee 
1984, 1985, 1986 


Vll 















INTRODUCTION 


Inside Views is a modest, plainly wrapped and inexpensively produced 
publication. As you read the articles, however, you will begin to feel the 
enormous breadth of the Library's automation efforts and the intense involvement 
of its staff. You will read about plans that failed and those that have been 
enormous successes; about frustrations at delayed implementation of systems, and 
of conflicting goals. What is unmistakably clear is that we regard ourselves as 
part of a lively family where members chide, criticize and laud each other 
regularly. It strikes me that most of us don't want to work anywhere else. 

The editorial board, the contributors, and many other volunteers spent 
untold lunch and after work hours, planning, writing, typing and pasting up this 
publication. I cannot imagine finding another organization where so many people 
give so much of their own time. 

The idea for a publication on automation was conceived by the 1984 LCPA 
Executive Committee, but the editorial board for Inside Views — Winston Tabb, 
Barbara Finfrock, Kathleen Mang and myself — is responsible for providing the 
structure and for selecting contributors. Winston's knowledge of the Copyright 
Office and the Congressional Research Service, Barbara's of Processing Services 
and the Automated Systems Office, and Kathy's of the Research Services Department 
enabled us to find contributors in almost every part of the Library. 

Special acknowledgement and appreciation are given to the contributors 
themselves and to the editorial board; thanks also to the current and past LCPA 
Executive Committees, to Louis Drummond and Lee Avdoyan, President and 
Past-President of LCPA for their support and advice; to Tom Felt, Connie Johnson, 
R. Russell Neuswanger, Lee Avdoyan, and Louis Drummond for re-keying articles not 
submitted on Corapucorp discs; to Peggy Pixley, Don Shomette, and Jack Early for 
their advice and assistance on the cover and title page; to Judy Krone, who gave 
me help on the technical aspects of camera-ready copy; to Peter Sparks, Felix 
Krayeski, Basil Manns, and Carolyn Morrow for providing photographs and 
explanations for the cover; to the production team extraordinaire, Victoria Hill 
and Diane Nester, who perservered for ten hours straight, and to Judith Farley 
who edited these words. 

Suzanne E. Thorin 
Editor 


IX 










, 





























OVERVIEWS 


COMPUTERIZATION AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: THE FIRST 
TWENTY YEARS 

Twenty-two years ago* the very patrician Senator 
Saltonstall Leaned across a hearings table and said to 
Librarian of Congress Mumford, "I have had a continuing 
interest in the subject of mechanization of libraries 
...[and] it is a subject that we could ask [you] to 
work on and possibly present as a part of [your] 
request to the Bureau of the Budget next year....As I 
understand it, it assists a person in getting 
information on a complicated subject or on any subject 
from a library. Just how, I am very frank to say, is 
completely over ray head." 

Librarian Mumford replied, "We have had an internal 
committee since early in 1958 studying what is being 
done in business and in industry and in government 
elsewhere...We are intensely interested in the matter 
and wish to progress as the means are available for 
doing this...[but] we realized that we must approach it 
cautiously, because the cost in equipment in this area 
is enormous, and we certainly do not wish to start 
junking our conventional methods of control of 
information." Mumford continued, "We are at the 
present time contemplating trying to assign one person 
to devote himself exclusively to this thing." 

That one person became the thin edge of a mighty 
wedge. 

Like so many things the Library of Congress does, 
its experience with automation closely parallels the 
experience of most of Lhe nation's libraries; the major 
difference is simply size. The basic synopsis could 
well read: LC avoided computerization as long as 
possible, was intimidated into exploration, suddenly 
realized the potential, became fascinated and wildly 
hopeful, received the icy shock of reality, and has 
since been trying grimly to make it work among those 
day-to-day procedures where it seems genuinely 
appropriate. 

Computerization at the Library of Congress has 
taken longer and cost more than even its worst enemy 
ever predicted, but it is finally in place and doing 
most of what it was promised, reasonably reliably. 

Promises, Promises 

The story begins in 1961. Using money from the 
Council on Library Resources, the Library hired a 
consultant firm to do a feasibility study to see if 
LC's operations were appropriate to automation. In 
1962, to no one's surprise, the preliminary report said 
they were. 

The survey was done by a team under Gilbert W. King 
and is therefore referred to as the King Report. It 
concluded that the process of computerization would be 
reasonably simple in terms of procedures, but something 
of a problem because of dimension. The team postulated 
that since each item was a tiny, finite block (the 
equivalent of a catalog card), each could be loaded 
into the computer and then controlled, added to, and 
recalled without complications. 

The King Report pictured a system where one of 
these tiny, binary "documents" would be created when a 
book was ordered, expanded as it was cataloged, 
annotated as the monograph was charged in and out or 
sent for rebinding, and in general manipulated so as to 
reflect everything that happens to a book through it's 


lifetime in a library. 

The theoreticians drew a verbal picture of LC's 
great reading room cleared of bulky card catalog cases. 

In their place would be dozens of desk-sized computer 
terminals before which readers would sit and ask 
questions: What is the call number for a particular 
book? Answer appears on the terminal's television Lube: 
Z733.W38. How many books do you have on thus-and-such 
a subject? Answer: 150. Let me see those written in 
English, printed after 1950, that contain a 
bibliography. The tube shows a catalog card for each, 
one at a time, at the reader's command, and if he wants 
to retain the citation, he presses a button and a copy 
of the card slides out of Lhe side of the machine for 
him to take with him. The King Report recommended a 
timetable that would bring all these magical visions to 
reality by 1972. 

Described to the Library management with flip - 
charts, plastic-bound prospecti, and ultimately, a 
hardbound summary report, the potential system was 
shown to have great flexibility and result in genuine 
economies for the Library of Congress. Even more, it 
was seen to hold even greater potential for American 
1 ibrar iansh ip in general. The computer would hold in 
its memory not only the equivalent of the LC catalog, 
but the entire National Union Catalog as well. With 
this, the computer would indeed have a record of almost 
every item held in every library anywhere in North 
America. 

Thus, all a library in Phoenix or Bangor would have 
to do was tell LC to add its symbol to the LC "card" 
for every book it got, and Phoenix or Bangor could 
throw away their catalogs, too. An Arizonian would ask 
the Phoenix computer terminal, what books do you have 
on thus-and-such, written in English, printed after 
1950, with the symbol for Lhe Phoenix Public Library on 
it, and the machine would work as well in Phoenix as in 
Washington. The cost of a rented telephone line was 
appreciable less than all the catalogers' salaries that 
could be eliminated. 

Assured by the computer specialists that the system 
was feasible, LC went to work. 

An Impossible Task 

Work began with the building of the tiny block that 
represented a catalog card in the computer's memory. 
Recognizing that if the King Report was right, this 
block or document would some day be the basis for a 
worldwide bibliographic network, the Library designed 
it in close cooperation with all the major library 
groups. 

Months of meetings involving representatives of the 
American Library Association, the Special Libraries 
Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the 
Committee on Scientific and Technical Information, the 
British National Bibliography, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, the National Library of Medicine, and 
the National Agricultural Library produced a "format" 
known as MARC (pronounced "mark" and standing for 
MAchine-Readable Cataloging). 

With the MARC established, LC began producing 
computer tapes containing all English-language books 
cataloged by LC and made these tapes available to 
sixteen carefully chosen libraries representing several 
different types. With the tapes went computer programs 
that would print out such basic products as individual 


1 






OVERVIEWS 


cards or book catalogs. Once the pilot program was 
shaken down, a refined MARC II was produced, and it is 
now the basic format at LC. Tapes were made available 
to any library, and by 1980 there were sixty-eight 
institutional subscribers, each buying a weekly 
300-foot reel containing some thousand new records. 

So far so good. But from Lhis point on, almost 
nothing worked out as the computer industry had 
predicted. Through the 1960's literally dozens of 
computer hardware and software manufactures visited the 
library to get pieces of the action--in the hope that 
being in on the automation of the national library 
would open all other libraries to their product--only 
to withdraw, shaken by the immensity of what they 
found. 

The original estimates had concentrated too heavily 
on how a reader would get information out of the 
computer, and too little on what it was going to Lake 
to get it in. They had failed to anticipate the 
multiplicity of printed characters that would be 
necessary, not to mention the fact that rather than 
being a finite size like a bank check, the "document" 
could run to many hundreds of characters; thus, there 
could be no uniform lengths or localities established 
in the finding programs for retrieval. 

The complex relationships between order files, 
charge files, accession files, shelflist files, subject 
files, language files, and scores of others proved far 
more complex than originally expected. Similarly, the 
whole catalog had to be kept on line all the time. 
There was no way any part could be mounted on certain 
days of the week or any portion of the cards could be 
brought up in response to controlled demands. All 
eighteen million cards had to be ready to be searched 
at any time. 

Through the sixties the contractors abandoned 
programs, broke agreements, and pilot study after piloL 
study seemed to disappear somewhere beLween start-up 
and delivery date. By the end of the decade, the 
Library had all but given up on out-of-house firms that 
time and again failed to understand how the data was 
actually created or how it was to be used. 

In their place, LC built its own, in-house 
"Automated Systems Office," which today involves nearly 
two hundred people. The staff is a mixture of 
librarians who have been trained as computer 
specialists and computer technicians whom the Library 
has trained as librarians. And the system is working 
very well. 

Locked Rooms W ith Com puter K eys 

The idea of a great computerized system of 
bibliographic cradle-to-grave information has been 
pushed back on the shelf, and LC is now automating 
specific chunks, one procedure or product at a Lime. 

The computerized activity at the Library of 
Congress is slightly different than that traditionally 
perceived for a library. By convention, a library 
stores vast quantities of knowledge without trying to 
guess how it will be used. In most of LC's 
applications, however, blocks of knowledge have been 
identified and put aside for intensive manipulation by 
a specific audience for a recognized purpose. A valid 
metaphor might easily be a long corridor with rooms on 
either side. Each room is filled with different kinds 
of facts, and not only has the Library of Congress 


devised different keys to get into each room, but it 
has devised a single "skeleton" key to get into the 
files, cabinets, and closets within that room—but only 
that room. 


Twenty-five years of experience proved that rather 
than design a master key Lhat would make the entire 
eighty million pieces accessible, it was better to make 
different keys to do different things. 


A Failure In 


Whenever the library profession is surveyed on 
their attitudes toward the Library of Congress, high on 
the list of hopes and disappointments comes 
"leadership," and there are few areas where hopes were 
higher than the desire for LC to break the trail in 
automation and technology. The expected target was for 
LC to provide an automated model that could be copied 
in various sizes from the Eureka Springs bookmobile to 
the Harvard Graduate School. As it worked out, it was 
ail LC could do to get its own systems working, without 
even approaching a reproducible copy. 


The failure to create a wider universe had many 
parts. Paramount was the fact that the Congress did not 
want its database accessed by everybody and expressly 
forbade LC to provide computer service to 
nongovernmental facilities. Similarly, while LC was 
struggling to get started, OCLC designed a truly 
inspired facility that served an ever-growing audience 
(at the time of this writing, OCLC supports some 4,000 
members with a reported 20,000 additional organizations 
having access to its files). OCLC Look most of the 
usual pressure off the Library of Congress to provide 
the service. 

Once MARC was well established and the recent 
collections of the Library were digitalized and online, 
many people expected the Library to build a network of 
computer links throughout the country. Congress' 
reluctance impeded this, but even more, a variety of 
responsive regional and effective facilities had 
already come into existence. Any over-all network 
would threaten or erode their worlds, and a subtle 
resistance began to build not only to hold LC at arm's 
length, buL even to joint or link with each other. 


This is where things stand now. The idea of the 
Library of Congress heading a great network of 
bibliographic computers is seldom discussed by anyone 
any more. But the idea of LC providing the 
professional, high quality, authority-based 
bibliographic information for many networks and 
facilities is accepted and progressing. 


The FuLure 

That happens next? Work is now going forward to 
link various programs and data banks so a single key—a 
single set of commands, a single sign-on—wi11 give 
access to more than one room. BOW TIE is a program 
under development Lhat will bring portions of SCORPIO 
and MUMS together, making certain techniques and 
certain data simultaneously available from each 
program. 


A second path enters the new world of videodiscs, 
where the entire book, motion picture, or manuscript is 
stored in laser/dlgita 1 blips and brought on to the 
screen in the manner of a stop-frame television show. 
Although the videodisc technology is the model for the 
technique, the Library is exploring a far more 


2 






OVERVIEWS 


sophisticated form called the digital optical disk, 
which, it is now believed, will store the complete text 
of three thousand volumes on a single platter and thus 
have monumental impact on the preservation , the size 
of future libraries, and the potential for turning 
every library into a miniature Library of Congress. 

And thus the first twenty years. The staff is in 
place, the skills are learned, and the targeting of 
energy and resources is now sharper than ever before. 
The next twenty years of LC automation should be both 
splendid and fascinating. 

Charles Goodrum and Helen Dalrymple 

[Re-printed with permission in an abridged version from 
the Wilson Library Bulletin, v. 57, October 1982, p. 
115-121] 


COMPUTERS, MANAGEMENT, AND THE FUTURE 

Productivity is a subject of keen interest to 
managers. Until recently, increases in productivity 
have come from converting muscle work to machine work. 
When the Library of Congress' Jefferson Building opened 
in 1897, it incorporated the latest and fanciest of 
library machinery: pneumatic tubes and conveyor belts 
to retrieve books for use in the reading rooms. For 
more than sixty years, however, virtually no machines 
were installed to improve the efficiency of the basic 
plant, except for air coolers. Indeed, some recent 
changes were retrograde in a way. The present book 
conveyor system, for example, is slower than the one it 
replaced, although more far-reaching, in that it 
connects three buildings and is kinder to the books it 
carries. 

New Machines 

In the last twenty years machines to ease and speed 
muscle work have been joined by machines to ease and 
speed white collar work. We now have word-processors, 
photocopiers, computers, optical disk equipment, and 
electronic mail. Think of the work that in the last 
twenty years has felt the touch of new machines. In 
the sixties, we had an army of card filers; now we have 
an army of MARC inputters. Acquisitions, personnel, 
and budget records now are entered into a computer; 
data on congressional requests sluice around inside 
ISIS; readers do much if not most of their 
bibliographic searching on computer terminals. 

Though we have come far, we are only in the first 
phase of our revolution. Our machines can do faster 
and better the same things that before, by and large, 
we did manually. But, we have created the library 
equivalent of the horseless carriage—an old fashioned 
carriage with a motor stuck on not the modern 
automobile. We need to execute one of Thomas Kuhn's 
paradigm shifts. In his Structure of Scientific 
Revolutions Kuhn described how revolutionary advances 
in science entail discarding the old decrepit 
"paradigm" (or basic abstract model of the world) and 
replacing it by another that fits the facts of 
experience (or experiment) more closely. So it was 
that the Copernican model of the solar system displaced 
the Ptolemaic, and the Einsteinian universe displaced 


the Newtonian. From these fundamental shifts came 
innumerable changes throughout all science, each having 
their origin in the vision of the world that opened out 
from the new paradigm. So it follows that librarians 
must focus on the new reality brought us by electronic 
technology and start thinking not in terms of paper and 
cards, but of electronic information and cu1ture—most 
particularly of how to exploit them to best serve the 
needs of our patrons. 

New Jobs 

Another challenge is even more immediate, the 
challenge of using the new technologies to increase 
staff output. Some new developments are understandably 
scary to staff. Despite the notorious reputation of 
the computer for increasing staff needs rather than 
reducing them, many in jobs affected by the computer 
worry that even if the number of jobs overall goes up 
the number of jobs they could fill might go down. This 
circumstance cries out for a fair, sensible, and 
reassuring response for management. We must alert 
staff early and well to all impending change. Most 
importantly, staff and management must cooperate in 
putting the new gadgelry to work. It is by now happily 
a cliche that our own people, our own staff, possess 
the unique knowledge and experience to provide the best 
advice and ideas on effecting change at the work site. 
A key challenge to managers is that of winning the 
confidence and full support of their staff so that 
all--the employee, the supervisor and the 
institution—can reap the harvest of ideas which staff, 
when challenged, supported, and heeded, has to offer. 
The Copyright Office has led the way in the increase of 
productivity through consultation with staff. By using 
a management matrix, the Optical Disk Pilot Program is 
another such success story. 

Changes In Service 

The second challenge of management is to 
revolutionize library service to patrons: to transform 
our horseless carriage into a modern Ferrari. If we are 
to do so, we must work as a team as we hurtle into an 
unpredictable future, a future that is a little 
worrying to all of us. 

I believe that librarianship ideally aims to 
achieve instant access for all, anywhere, to all 
knowledge'and preserved culture. Put aside for the 
moment the notion that if we achieve the ideal we might 
have placed ourselves in the nightmare of a certain 
Borges story that describes a people so oppressed by 
the ready access to all knowledge and thought that 
ultimately the people rise up and obliterate the 
Universal Library. Put aside also the thought that 
ready, free access to information and culture will 
devalue it to the degree that it is utterly ignored, 
like the keenly awaited book which, when bought, 
languishes forever on the shelf unread. 

To improve service in a way that exploits the new 
technology is to exploit the computer, 
telecommunications, and gigamass storage devices (like 
optical disks) so as to transform "libraries" from a 
place into a "pure" service. If the information or 
work of literature or art (including precise 
representations of the printed page or an elegant 
electronic successor to the printed page) is available 
in digital form, then that item is almost infinitely 
transportable. It does not defy reason to expect that 
the electronic "book" of the future will be as 
portable, convenient, practical, handsome, and lovable 


3 









BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


There was simply no perfect solution to the 
problems. We had learned the questions to ask, had 
suggested the files and approaches, recommended a 
centralized large-scale operation that would keep 
costly duplication to a minimum through coordinated 
efforts, developed FR programs that were useful but had 
problems, had described levels of description that were 
required, and recommended establishing some agency to 
coordinate large-scale conversion. 

Other Projects 

Nothing happened, though CLR expressed continuing 
interest in various means for exchanging records. In 
LC during the 1970's and 1980's there were experiments 
with a number of projects that would have implications 
for recon. COMARC, a project for testing the 
feasibility of sharing the labor of creating machine 
records, ended in 1978 after nearly 40,000 machine 
records were created by libraries other than LC for 
items outside the scope of MARC, but that had an 
existing LC manual cataloging record. We learned that 
following LC procedures outside LC can be difficult, 
and that without validation against authorities, 
verification and correction of records is just as 
expensive as doing the conversion in LC. 

Having begun to put currently created name 
authority records into machine form in 1977, in 1978 LC 
began to includein these records data for headings as 
they would be established under AACR2 beginning in 
1981. And, in 1980-81 in preparation for AACR2, LC and 
CLR worked to convert heavily-used retrospective name 
headings into machine form, thereby enhancing the 
prospects for authorities to be used later in 
bibliographic conversions. 

During 1981 and 1982 a report was prepared 
specifying machine methods for updating pre~AACR2 
records to AACR2 forms through the use of the online 
name authority file. (Bibflip, 1982) Such a project, 
of course, would be a conversion of a different sort 
than has been emphasized here, that is a conversion of 
fields in records already in machine form. The 
programs could be helpful later, however, if non-MARC 
records ever were automated in their original form. 
This machine project never came to pass, as LC chose 
instead to do such a flip manually with contracted 
staff beginning in fall, 1983. 

Finally, there is the University of Chicago 
cooperative project, begun in 1983 to create nearly 
40,000 retrospective bibliographic and name authority 
records. The University of Chicago now has direct 
access to LOCIS for inputting and updating records in 
science and medicine, records selected from LC non-MARC 
items. Chicago not only is inputting the records, but 
also upgrading descriptive access points to AACR2 and 
subject access points to LCSH. The project is part of 
a larger CODABASE (Cooperative Databases Building 
System) program under way in LC that allows 
contributions to LC files by mail and, in limited 
cases, by terminal. 

PreMARC 

Then we have PreMARC, the largest project of them 
all and the third method by which LC is approaching 
recon. In January 1980 LC agreed to buy from 
Carrollton Press, Inc. (CP) machine bibliographic 
records that were keyed by CP from a hard-copy blowback 
of a microfiche version of several LC card shelflists. 
The fiche snapshot of the shelflists had been prepared 


between April 1978 and September 1979 by University 
Microfilms, Inc. and Historical Documents, Inc., the 
latter an organization related to CP. The Library 
states in its 1980 annual report that the "converted LC 
records...wil1 be used to support LC staff and readers 
and in the cataloging, she 1f1 1 sting, and card 
production operations." (Library 1981, 57) Several 
years later there were two additional explicit 
statements that PreMARC was the file of record. In a 
1984 report a PreMARC Database Planning Group states 
that although PreMARC "was originally conceived as an 
adjunct to the Mam Catalog...recent events, especially 
the plans for the restoration of the Jefferson 
Building, have changed this concept, making the PreMARC 
database the primary file for the use of the older 
collections," and later that "the Premarc database is 
the 'official' file for the records it contains and 
must be upgraded to reflect the most current 
information about each item represented." (Library 
1984, i, 11) And, in a memorandum to the Deputy 
Librarian of Congress in 1985, the Assistant Librarian 
for Processing Services states that all future updates 
on non-MARC records should be done on PreMARC once 
input/update capability is available, that no changes 
should be made to the official or main card catalogs. 
(Avrara 1985) 

Will Pre-MARC Work? 

Is PreMARC now capable of this responsibility as 
catalog of record and do the plans to upgrade PreMARC 
make it capable? No, on both counts. 

As suggested in the contract signed by LC and CP in 
1980, PreMARC was never intended to be a catalog of 
record. If we look at the questions addressed in the 
projects of the late 1960's and early 1970's, we see 
that PreMARC cannot reasonable fulfill any of the goals 
implied. The base file is several LC card shelflists 
(general, atlas, maps, music), MARC cards excluded; the 
shelflists do not contain records for all cataloged 
items in these formats. Notably absent are the 
numerous pre-1898 "paste-on" cards in the Main Catalog, 
unclassified law, nearly 200,000 non-romanized records, 
nearly 30,000 music records, over 100,000 priority 4 
records with partial cataloging, 30,000 rare pamphlets, 
and some records from the "official author catalogue" 
begun in 1865. Some of these records are being 
included in a PreMARC II project. But, in fact, there 
is still no single catalog in book or card form that 
reflects all the monographic holdings of LC, not to 
mention other formats. In terms of scope, PreMARC 
leaves much to be desired. 

In levels of cataloging description PreMARC also 
falls short. At thirty-seven cents a record, LC agreed 
with CP to key selected fields; although these 
represent most primary access points, notably absent 
are Dewey numbers, untraced series, many second call 
numbers, and all title field data beyond the first 
thought, which often results in leaving out editors, 
translators, edition notes, subtitles, all of which are 
bibliographic elements crucial for making acquisitions, 
cataloging, reference, and loan decisions. In terms of 
machine standards consistent with current cataloging 
efforts, PreMARC reveals serious problems, as the 
weaknesses of format recognition have become readily 
apparent. Errors already present on printed cards, 
keying errors often made due to the illegible 
third-generation blowback of the fiche, and differences 
in cataloging conventions represented in PreMARC, wreak 
havoc with FR, thereby leaving fields mistagged with 
serious negative impact on retrieval. Over 50 percent 


6 





BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


of the 4.5 million records in PreMARC have errors, many 
of them significant for retrieval for any library 
purposes. Last but not least, PreMARC records have the 
subject headings assigned when an item was initially 
cataloged; no changes are made to these fields, though 
the changes are reflected in some other catalogs. 
Subject searching through PreMARC, whether for readers, 
catalogers, or card production, requires consulting 
nine editions of LCSH. 

Necessary Upgrades 

In accordance with its initial recommendations in 
the 1970's, with PreMARC LC has embarked on a 
centralized large-scale recon effort. It is clear that 
despite its problems, PreMARC represents significant 
searching advantages by being available online through 
LOCIS. Quite simply, the file may be searched in many 
ways impossible in a card catalog. But the problems 
identified above will persist until an adequate upgrade 
project is supported and implemented to make PreMARC 
the file it is stated to be, though not initially 
intended to be. The 1984 PreMARC Database Planning 
Group identifies eight upgrade methods and supports 
four for key fields only. A subsequent 1985 report by 
the Research Services Department identifies three 
levels of upgrade for improving the quality of records 
and several catalogs to be used to enhance the scope of 
the file. (Library 1985, 3,5) 

In the spring of 1985 several simulation studies 
were completed to determine the resources required for 
these various upgrades, doing PreMARC alone or as part 
of other projects. Upgrading 150,000 PreMARC records 
alone each year would require from 7 to 14 staff, 
depending on the level of the upgrade. Combining 
PreMARC with other preservation and inventory control 
projects would require 10 to 17 staff for the same 
number of records. Clearly, there would be advantages 
to combining the projects, even though in either case 
we are looking at a twenty-year time span should LC go 
it alone. A proposal to consolidate the three projects 
(but to correct and fill out only five key fields: call 
number, copy call number, main entry, title, card 
number) was received favorably by senior LC management, 
but will not be proposed to Congress before FY88 
requests go forward. Funding for preparation work 
before FY88 has not been approved in LC; such work 
could have included large offline searches of the file 
to identify records with known problems as well as 
other advance maintenance. However, beginning in 1986 
LC will be able to update error records that are 
reported by LC staff, and will correct only the 
specific errors that are reported. 

Though PreMARC "represents the best opportunity to 
bring the Library's catalogs into a single integrated 
source," clearly that will not be done. (Library 1985, 
5) And, features in the LC/CP contract impose further 
restrictions; until the year 2005 LC cannot distribute 
more than 15,000 upgraded records annually, a 
limitation Richard DeGennaro says "can be regarded as 
one of the 'seven blunders' of the library world." 
(Retrospective 1984, 56) and which could have 
implications for assistance other libraries could offer 
in cooperative projects for upgrading PreMARC. In 
recent months recon questions have received even more 
attention: CLR and the Association of Research 
Libraries are working together on a two-year pilot 
project to synchronize conversion of collections by 
subject, and research is moving forward on the use of 
improved technologies such as optical disk and optical 
character recognition. Whether librarians believe a 


high quality national retrospective database created in 
a coordinated fashion is still possible or desirable, 
it is certainly viable with PreMARC as one major 
source; despite its shortcomings, PreMARC and the 
files in LC that can be used to enhance it represent 
only ignoring its own wisdom, but also losing a rare 
opportunity: in one project the Library could fulfill 

the needs of its staff and researchers and, at the same 
time, assist libraries that in the past looked to it 
and depended on it for bibliographic leadership. 

Linda Arret 

General Reading Rooms Division 


SELECTED REFERENCES 


Avram, Henriette D. (1985) "Recommendations for a 
Core Official Catalog," memorandum to William J. Welsh, 
Deputy Librarian of Congress. February 25, 1985. 
Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Processing 
Services Department, 1985. 

Avram, Henriette D. (1972) Recon Pilot Project; 
Final Report on a Project Sponsored by the Library of 


Congress, 

The 

Council on Library Resources, 

Inc., and 

the U.S. 

Dept 

. of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, 


Office of Education . Washington, D.C.: Library of 
Congress, 1972. 

Bibliographic Flip: Requirements for Conversion of 

Bibliographic Data for AACR 2 . (1982) Ed. Jo Calk, 
April 1982. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 
Processing Services Department, 1982. 

Crismond, Linda F. (1981) "Quality Issues in 
Retrospective Conversion Projects," LRTS vol. 25, no. 
1 (January/March 1981), pp. 48-55. 

Library of Congress. (1981) Annual Report of the 
Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 1980 . Washington, D.C.: Library of 
Congress, 1981. 

Library of Congress. Premarc Database Planning 
Group. (1984) Report . ed. Lucia Rather, December 
1984. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 

Processing Services Department, 1984. 

Library of Congress. Research Services Department. 
Ad Hoc Group on Premarc. (1985) Enhancing Premarc , 
ed. Linda Arret, March 1985. Washington, D.C.: Library 
of Congress, Research Services Department, 1985. 

"Recon Roundup," American Libraries , vol. 16, no. 
10(November 1985), p. 700. 

Recon Working Task Force. (1969) Conversion of 
Retrospective Catalog Records to Machine-Readable Form: 

A Study of the Feasibility of a National Bibliographic 

Service. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1969. 


Recon Working Task Force. (1973) National Aspects 
of C reating and Using MARC/RECON Records . Washington, 
D.C.: Library of Congress, 1973. 

Reed-Scott, Jutta. "Retrospective Conversion: An 
Update," American Libraries, vol. 16, no. 10 (November 
1985), pp. 694-698. 

Retrospective Conversion: Report of a Meeting 

Sponsore d by the Council on Library Resources. (1984) 

July 16-18, Wayzata, Minnesota. Compiled and edited by 
Dorothy Gregor. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library 
Resources, 1984. 


7 










































BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


There was simply no perfect solution to the 
problems. We had learned the questions to ask, had 
suggested the files and approaches, recommended a 
centralized large-scale operation that would keep 
costly duplication to a minimum through coordinated 
efforts, developed FR programs that were useful but had 
problems, had described levels of description that were 
required, and recommended establishing some agency to 
coordinate large-scale conversion. 

Other Projects 

Nothing happened, though CLR expressed continuing 
interest in various means for exchanging records. In 
LC during the 1970's and 1980's there were experiments 
with a number of projects that would have implications 
for recon. COMARC, a project for testing the 
feasibility of sharing the labor of creating machine 
records, ended in 1978 after nearly 40,000 machine 
records were created by libraries other than LC for 
items outside the scope of MARC, but that had an 
existing LC manual cataloging record. We learned that 
following LC procedures outside LC can be difficult, 
and that without validation against authorities, 
verification and correction of records is just as 
expensive as doing the conversion in LC. 

Having begun to put currently created name 
authority records into machine form in 1977, in 1978 LC 
began to includein these records data for headings as 
they would be established under AACR2 beginning in 
1981. And, in 1980-81 in preparation for AACR2, LC and 
CLR worked to convert heavily-used retrospective name 
headings into machine form, thereby enhancing the 
prospects for authorities to be used later in 
bibliographic conversions. 

During 1981 and 1982 a report was prepared 
specifying machine methods for updating pre~AACR2 
records to AACR2 forms through the use of the online 
name authority file. (Bibflip, 1982) Such a project, 
of course, would be a conversion of a different sort 
than has been emphasized here, that is a conversion of 
fields in records already in machine form. The 
programs could be helpful later, however, if non-MARC 
records ever were automated in their original form. 
This machine project never came to pass, as LC chose 
instead to do such a flip manually with contracted 
staff beginning in fall, 1983. 

Finally, there is the University of Chicago 
cooperative project, begun in 1983 to create nearly 
40,000 retrospective bibliographic and name authority 
records. The University of Chicago now has direct 
access to LOCIS for inputting and updating records in 
science and medicine, records selected from LC non-MARC 
items. Chicago not only is inputting the records, but 
also upgrading descriptive access points to AACR2 and 
subject access points to LCSH. The project is part of 
a larger CODABASE (Cooperative Databases Building 
System) program under way in LC that allows 
contributions to LC files by mail and, in limited 
cases, by terminal. 

PreMARC 

Then we have PreMARC, the largest project of them 
all and the third method by which LC is approaching 
recon. In January 1980 LC agreed to buy from 
Carrollton Press, Inc. (CP) machine bibliographic 
records that were keyed by CP from a hard-copy blowback 
of a microfiche version of several LC card shelflists. 
The fiche snapshot of the shelflists had been prepared 


between April 1978 and September 1979 by University 
Microfilms, Inc. and Historical Documents, Inc., the 
latter an organization related to CP. The Library 
states in its 1980 annual report that the "converted LC 
records...wi11 be used to support LC staff and readers 
and in the cataloging, she 1f1isting, and card 
production operations." (Library 1981, 57) Several 
years later there were two additional explicit 
statements that PreMARC was the file of record. In a 
1984 report a PreMARC Database Planning Group states 
that although PreMARC "was originally conceived as an 
adjunct to the Main Catalog...recent events, especially 
the plans for the restoration of the Jefferson 
Building, have changed this concept, making the PreMARC 
database the primary file for the use of the older 
collections," and later that "the Premarc database is 
the 'official' file for the records it contains and 
must be upgraded to reflect the most current 
information about each item represented." (Library 
1984, i, 11) And, in a memorandum to the Deputy 
Librarian of Congress in 1985, the Assistant Librarian 
for Processing Services states that all future updates 
on non-MARC records should be done on PreMARC once 
input/update capability is available, that no changes 
should be made to the official or main card catalogs. 
(Avram 1985) 

Will Pre-MARC Work? 

Is PreMARC now capable of this responsibility as 
catalog of record and do the plans to upgrade PreMARC 
make it capable? No, on both counts. 

As suggested in the contract signed by LC and CP in 
1980, PreMARC was never intended to be a catalog of 
record. If we look at the questions addressed in the 
projects of the late 1960's and early 1970's, we see 
that PreMARC cannot reasonable fulfill any of the goals 
implied. The base file is several LC card shelflists 
(general, atlas, maps, music), MARC cards excluded; the 
shelflists do not contain records for all cataloged 
items in these formats. Notably absent are the 
numerous pre-1898 "paste-on" cards in the Main Catalog, 
unclassified law, nearly 200,000 non-romanized records, 
nearly 30,000 music records, over 100,000 priority 4 
records with partial cataloging, 30,000 rare pamphlets, 
and some records from the "official author catalogue" 
begun in 1865 . Some of these records are being 
included in a PreMARC II project. But, in fact, there 
is still no single catalog in book or card form that 
reflects all the monographic holdings of LC, not to 
mention other formats. In terms of scope, PreMARC 
leaves much to be desired. 

In levels of cataloging description PreMARC also 
falls short. At thirty-seven cents a record, LC agreed 
with CP to key selected fields; although these 
represent most primary access points, notably absent 
are Dewey numbers, untraced series, many second call 
numbers, and all title field data beyond the first 
thought, which often results in leaving out editors, 
translators, edition notes, subtitles, all of which are 
bibliographic elements crucial for making acquisitions, 
cataloging, reference, and loan decisions. In terms of 
machine standards consistent with current cataloging 
efforts, PreMARC reveals serious problems, as the 
weaknesses of format recognition have become readily 
apparent. Errors already present on printed cards, 
keying errors often made due to the illegible 
third-generation blowback of the fiche, and differences 
in cataloging conventions represented in PreMARC, wreak 
havoc with FR, thereby leaving fields mistagged with 
serious negative impact on retrieval. Over 50 percent 


6 






BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


of the 4.5 million records in PreMARC have errors, many 
of them significant for retrieval for any library 
purposes. Last but not least, PreMARC records have the 
subject headings assigned when an item was initially 
cataloged; no changes are made to these fields, though 
the changes are reflected in some other catalogs. 
Subject searching through PreMARC, whether for readers, 
catalogers, or card production, requires consulting 
nine editions of LCSH. 

Necessary Upgrades 

In accordance with its initial recommendations in 
the 1970's, with PreMARC LC has embarked on a 
centralized large-scale recon effort. It is clear that 
despite its problems, PreMARC represents significant 
searching advantages by being available online through 
LOCIS. Quite simply, the file may be searched in many 
ways impossible in a card catalog. But the problems 
identified above will persist until an adequate upgrade 
project is supported and implemented to make PreMARC 
the file it is stated to be, though not initially 
intended to be. The 1984 PreMARC Database Planning 
Group identifies eight upgrade methods and supports 
four for key fields only. A subsequent 1985 report by 
the Research Services Department identifies three 
levels of upgrade for improving the quality of records 
and several catalogs to be used to enhance the scope of 
the file. (Library 1985, 3,5) 

In the spring of 1985 several simulation studies 
were completed to determine the resources required for 
these various upgrades, doing PreMARC alone or as part 
of other projects. Upgrading 150,000 PreMARC records 
alone each year would require from 7 to 14 staff, 
depending on the level of the upgrade. Combining 
PreMARC with other preservation and inventory control 
projects would require 10 to 17 staff for the same 
number of records. Clearly, there would be advantages 
to combining the projects, even though in either case 
we are looking at a twenty-year time span should LC go 
it alone. A proposal to consolidate the three projects 
(but to correct and fill out only five key fields: call 
number, copy call number, main entry, title, card 
number) was received favorably by senior LC management, 
but will not be proposed to Congress before FY88 
requests go forward. Funding for preparation work 
before FY88 has not been approved in LC; such work 
could have included large offline searches of the file 
to identify records with known problems as well as 
other advance maintenance. However, beginning in 1986 
LC will be able to update error records that are 
reported by LC staff, and will correct only the 
specific errors that are reported. 

Though PreMARC "represents the best opportunity to 
bring the Library's catalogs into a single integrated 
source," clearly that will not be done. (Library 1985, 
5) And, features in the LC/CP contract impose further 
restrictions; until the year 2005 LC cannot distribute 
more than 15,000 upgraded records annually, a 
limitation Richard DeGennaro says "can be regarded as 
one of Lhe 'seven blunders' of the library world." 
(Retrospective 1984, 56) and which could have 
implications for assistance other libraries could offer 
in cooperative projects for upgrading PreMARC. In 
recent months recon questions have received even more 
attention: CLR and the Association of Research 
Libraries are working together on a two-year pilot 
project to synchronize conversion of collections by 
subject, and research is moving forward on the use of 
improved technologies such as optical disk and optical 
character recognition. Whether librarians believe a 


high quality national retrospective database created in 
a coordinated fashion is still possible or desirable, 
it is certainly viable with PreMARC as one major 
source; despite its shortcomings, PreMARC and the 
files in LC that can be used to enhance it represent 
only ignoring its own wisdom, but also losing a rare 
opportunity: in one project the Library could fulfill 

the needs of its staff and researchers and, at the same 
time, assist libraries that in the past looked to it 
and depended on it for bibliographic leadership. 

Linda Arret 

General Reading Rooms Division 
SELECTED REFERENCES 


Avram, Henriette D. (1985) "Recommendations for a 
Core Official Catalog," memorandum to William J. Welsh, 
Deputy Librarian of Congress. February 25, 1985. 
Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Processing 
Services Department, 1985. 

Avram, Henriette D. (1972) Recon Pilot Project; 
Final Report on a Project Sponsored by the Library of 


Congress, 

The 

Council on Library Resources, 

Inc., and 

the U.S. 

Dept 

. of He a1th, Education, and 

Welfare, 


Office of Education. Washington, D.C.: Library of 


Congress, 1972. 

Bibliographic Flip: Requirements for Conversion of 

Bibliographic Data for AACR 2 . (1982) Ed. Jo Calk, 

April 1982. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 
Processing Services Department, 1982. 

Crismond, Linda F. (1981) "Quality Issues in 
Retrospective Conversion Projects," LRTS vol. 25, no. 
1 (January/March 1981), pp. 48-55. 

Library of Congress. (1981) Annual Report of the 
Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending 

September 30, 1980 . Washington, D.C.: Library of 
Congress, 1981. 

Library of Congress. Premarc Database Planning 
Group. (1984) Report . ed. Lucia Rather, December 
1984. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 

Processing Services Department, 1984. 

Library of Congress. Research Services Department. 
Ad Hoc Group on Premarc. (1985) Enhancing Premarc , 
ed. Linda Arret, March 1985. Washington, D.C.: Library 
of Congress, Research Services Department, 1985. 

"Recon Roundup," American Libraries , vol. 16, no. 
10(November 1985), p. 700. 

Recon Working Task Force. (1969) Conversion of 
Retrospective Catalog Records to Machine-Readable Form: 

A Study of the Feasibility of a National Bibliographic 

Service■ Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1969. 


Recon Working Task Force. (1973) N ational Aspects 
o f Creating and Using MARC/RECON Records . Washington, 
D.C.: Library of Congress, 1973. 

Reed-Scott, Jutta. "Retrospective Conversion: An 
Update," American Libraries , vol. 16, no. 10 (November 
1985), pp. 694-698. 

Retrospective Conversion: Report of a Meeting 

Sponsored by the Council on Library Resources. (1984) 
July 16-18, Wayzata, Minnesota. Compiled and edited by 
Dorothy Gregor. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library 
Resources, 1984. 


7 








































BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


AUTOMATION AND LCSH 

The first edition of the Library of Congress 
subject heading list was issued in parts from 1909 to 

1914 under the title Subj ect Hea ding s_Us_ed__i_n_the 

Dictio nary Catalogu es of t h e L l b r arj^ _o f o n g r e s_s . New 
editions and supplements appeared subsequently at 
irregular intervals. 

As the list grew larger and more complex, it became 
necessary to change from a 7x10, one-column format to a 
9x11, three-column format and smaller type in order to 
keep the volumes to a reasonable size. The increase in 
size also increased the amount of time necessary to 
prepare the list for publication. The manual methods 
used to produce the 5th edition, for example, consisted 
of cutting the type lines from the 4th edition and its 
supplements into strips, gluing the strips to cards, 
then interfiling and editing the cards. This process 
began in November 1946 and was finished in August 1947 
with a final total of 60,000 cards. The cards were 
sent to the Government Printing Office in batches 
starting in June 1947, The Government Printing Office 
produced the first galley proofs of the list in August 
1947 and the last in January 1948. After proofing, the 
galley proofs were returned to the Government Printing 
Office, which then produced page proofs. The last 
corrected page proofs were returned to the Government 
Printing Office in September 1948. The total time 
consumed in producing the 5th edition, therefore, 
amounted to about two years. 

Aut omat ion I ntr odue ed 

Some automated procedures were introduced in the 
production of the 7th edition of the subject heading 
list. The 6th edition and its supplements were cut 
into strips, mounted on cards, and sent to GPO as 
usual. At GPO, however, format codes for each item 
were assigned by the keyboard operator and the data was 
input on a machine which produced a perforated paper 
tape. Using the paper tape, the data was input into a 
computer which generated locator numbers for each line. 
These locator numbers enabled the computer to sort and 
interfile supplements with the main edition. The 
computer then produced another paper tape which drove 
the photocomposing machine to produce pages for the new 
edition. 

It was intended that these techniques be continued. 

According to the Introduction to the 7th edition: 
"When the supplement for July 1964-Deceraber 1965 has 
been converted to machine-readable form, the basis will 
have been laid for automatic production of a single 
cumulated supplement to the seventh edition of the list 
and in due course for production of the eighth edition 
by the same means. Elimination of repetitive 
composition and proofreading operations afforded by 
these techniques is expected to result in more rapid 
production of future major cumulations and new editions 
of the list." Unfortunately this goal was not 
attained; as stated in the Preface to the 8th edition: 
"When the seventh edition (1966) of the present work 
...was printed by photocomposition from 
computer-produced tape, it was hoped that a base had 
been developed into which subsequent supplements could 
be merged and a new edition published in a relatively 
short time when needed. Technical shortcomings quickly 
made it evident that this hope was an 
oversimplification. Finally, it was decided that the 
only approach to a new edition was that of reformatting 
the seventh edition and each supplement through 1972 
with a consequent merge of all pieces into one list. 


This large task was assigned to the MARC Development 
Office of the Library of Congress and the Editorial 
Section of the Subject Cataloging Division." 

Mai ntenan ce__i_n Mach ine-Readable Form 

In 1970 the MARC Development Office began designing 
a system for the input, maintenance, and updating of 
subjecL headings in machine-readable form. This system 
was to incorporate the machine-readable data comprising 
the 7th edition and its supplements, which were 
prepared by the Government Printing Office for the 
photocomposition system. The data from the 7th edition 
and each supplement in turn was converted from the GPO 
format into the new format. The data was then printed 
out and proofread by staff of the Subject Headings 
Editorial Section. Corrections were input and run 
against the master file. As the supplements were 
converted, they were merged with the master file. 
Using this new system, subject headings through 1972 
were merged into one file, and the 8th edition appeared 
in 1975. 

This new system was then used to input data for 
supplements beginning with the January-March 1973 
supplement. The data was input using an ATS 
(Administrative Terminal System) terminal and merged 
using batch processing. The result of this processing 
was a magnetic tape used to run the Library's 
electronic photocomposition system, which in turn 
prepared the data for printing. Each quarter's data 
was input separately and later merged to produce the 
cumulated supplement. At the end of the year, the four 
quarters were merged with the master file. 

Input of data to the automated system was done 
after the weekly editorial meeting, which required a 
double keying of the data: once for the tentative 
weekly list and again for input to the automated 
system. In 1975 an enhancement to the automated system 
was introduced, which allowed the data to be input once 
via the ATS terminal and the tentative weekly list to 
be produced by the automated batch system. This first 
enhancement still required the input of reciprocal 
references after the editorial meeting; a later 
enhancement introduced a routine which automatically 
generated the reciprocal references. Another change in 
procedure introduced later was merging the data a week 
at a time into the yearly supplement file, rather than 
a quarter at a time. This is the system that is 
currently being used to produce the weekly lists, 
quarterly supplements, and new editions of LCSH. 

Ch anges in Format 

The introduction of the new system was not without 
impact on the data. As stated in the Introduction to 
the January-March 1 973 supplement: "The rules for LC 
subject headings remain generally unaltered, but 
automation has resulted in several changes in content 
and arrangement of material. ...Owing to the need for 
efficient arrangement of bibliographic entries by 
computer, a new set of filing rules has been followed. 
...Although the new rules retain features of systematic 
arrangement found in manually produced LC catalogs, 
they differ significantly in that a basic principle is 
to file a heading strictly as expressed in its written 
form, word by word." The application of this basic 
principle affected a number of situations: numbers 
expressed in digits are filed preceding alphabetic 
characters and are arranged according to increase in 
numeric value rather than arranged alphabetically 
according to their verbal equivalent; abbreviations 


8 



BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


such as St. (Saint) and Mt. (Mount) are filed as they 
look rather than according to their spelled-out 
version. Another change required by the automated 
system was in period subdivisions. Some subdivisions 
representing historical periods under place or topical 
headings which were previously filed in a chronological 
sequence could not easily be handled by computer 
because the periods were not in numeric form. All of 
these subdivisions were changed in the eighth edition 
by substituting or adding explicit dates: for example, 
UNITED STATES—HISTORY—CIVIL WAR was changed to 
UNITED STATES—HISTORY—CIVIL WAR, 1861-1865. The 
automated system also introduced a change in the 
arrangement of period subdivisions. Period subdivisions 
beginning with the same date and ending with various 
dates were previously filed with the broadest period 
first. Since the new filifig system follows a numeric 
progression, the shortest period is now filed first. 
And finally, the new filing rules caused inverted 
headings to file ahead of headings with parenthetical 
qualifiers; for example, in the new system the heading 
CHILDREN, ADOPTED files ahead of CHILDREN (ROMAN LAW), 
whereas in the old system the order was the reverse. 

The current automated system has several advantages 
over the old manual system. Data is proofread at the 
time of input, and since it is not rekeyed for 
supplements or new editions, it need not be proofread 
again; this reduces considerably the time needed to 
produce supplements and new editions. For instance, 
the processing time for the 9th edition was about nine 
months as contrasted to the two years required for the 
5th edition. Another advantage of the automated 
system is that there is no need to code for type style, 
indentations, or other elements of format; all 
formatting is done automatically by computer program. 


The current system has several disadvantages. All 
processing is carried out in batch mode, making 
correction procedures cumbersome. These procedures 
often require several runs (with proofreading of hard 
copy for each run) in order to complete a small number 
of corrections. Another disadvantage that has been 
encountered involves the use of the LIBSKED (Library 
Sort Key Edit) program, which is an integral part of 
all processing in the current system. The use of this 
program places some limitations on the data that can be 
input. For instance, hyphens are considered to be the 
same as spaces, and diacritic marks and apostrophes are 
ignored. This means that it is not possible to make a 
see reference from M 0 1 Connor family to Oconnor 
family"; the computer program considers these to be 
the same string and will not allow both. Another 
disadvantage has to do with the relative age of the 
current system. Most of the current system was 
developed more than ten years ago, and the 
documentation of the programs is not extensive. This 
situation makes analyzing errors and devising 
solutions to problems often a case of trial and error. 

Online Availability 

A new system for the online input and update of 
subject headings is being developed. This system will 
parallel the existing system for input and update of 
name authority records in most respects. It is 
expected that this new system will eliminate most of 
the disadvantages of the current system and will 
provide the additional advantage of an online search 
and retrieval capability not available in the current 


system. The projected implementation date for this new 
system is the end of 1985. 

Mary Lou Miller 

Subject Cataloging Division 


SERIALS AUTOMATION: THE USERS' PERSPECTIVE 

The Library of Congress subscribes to a mission 
fundamental to all libraries: serving the user. In 
addition to serving its direct user clientele, LC also 
has the goal of helping other libraries serve their 
users. Automation support has become an invaluable 
tool in both efforts. In this paper, we will examine 
how automation has helped and will help LC's own users 
(both patrons and employees) learn about and obtain 
desired issues or volumes of serials. We are taking a 
local LC user perspective both in the interest of 
brevity and because of our assumption that the efforts 
to help LC's direct users also will accrue to other 
libraries attempting to help their users. 

The questions asked by LC serial users can be 
reduced to three: Is there a serial which meets my 
needs? Does LC have the serial? Is the serial 
immediately available to me? 

Is There a Serial Which Meets My Needs? 

Reliable bibliographic data is fundamental to the 
user seeking to determine whether or not there is a 
serial. Happily, our main area of success in the 
automation of serials activities—indeed our main area 
of automated endeavor—has been that of creating 
machine-readable records containing descriptive and 
subject cataloging data, and most recently, abstracting 
and indexing coverage data. These are the records rich 
in identifying information about the publication per 
^( 2 , as well as what can be called the publication's 
analyzable attributes. 

The creating of these records has been accomplished 
through the CONSER (Conversion of Serials) Project, a 
ten-year collaborative effort by several dozen 
institutions to convert existing (now, more commonly, 
to create directly online) cataloging information for 
the world's serial publications. The online union 
catalog of OCLC, Inc. is the host data base for the 
project. The CONSER file has in excess of 550,000 
r.cords, approximately half of which have been 
"authenticated." 

Although not immediately apparent to the average 
user, the authentication process is extremely important 
in ensuring the timeliness, fullness, and accuracy of 
the bibliographic records available to the user. 
Authentication signals the type of review all or parts 
of a record have received. Another important feature 
is that it governs whether a record is sent to LC as 
part of the weekly distribution of CONSER records from 
OCLC. Until quite recently, only LC and the National 


9 





BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


Library of Canada and their International Serials Data 
System offices had the ability to authenticate a 
record. Not surprisingly, many records were 
unavailable within LC and to the MARC Distribution 
Service subscribers because the "funnel" for performing 
the authentication process was too small when compared 
with the number of records created by project 
participants. 

As a means of expediting the effort of record 
authentication and distribution and the preparation of 
products deriving from the CONSER data base, project 
participants now have the opportunity to perform 
authentication of records they have completed. As a 
result of sharing the authentication and maintenance 
responsibilities, the CONSER file is growing in the 
number of records and the timely maintenance of the 
content of the records. 

The Linked System Project (LSP) may provide yet 
another avenue in the future for expediting the 
bibliographic record creation and distribution process. 
A CONSER/LSP application would permit daily online 
exchange of newly created or updated records between 
the computer systems of cooperating institutions. It 
is foreseen that such major facilities as LC, OCLC, 
RLIN, and WLN could coordinate their files. In this 
way, LSP, also, would contribute to the growth and 
maintenance of serial cataloging records within LC. 

While a boon in most quarters, a bigger and better 
CONSER file has some drawbacks in terms of how the 
records are presented in MUMS. Internally, the CONSER 
file ^s the serials file. Not all of these records are 
held by LC, nor are those which are held always clearly 
marked with their call number or location. This 
predicament leads us to our next user question. 

Does LC Have The Issue? 

Once armed with the bibliographic data, our user's 
immediate question is: Does LC have the item? 
Automation holds the promise of giving a quick, 
reliable response. 

Within the CONSER Project, the US Newspaper Program 
alone supports machine-readable records of actual 
holdings. Local data records on OCLC are used to 
reflect the kind and the extent of issues held by 
participating institutions, including LC. All holdings 
for an item are appended to a single bibliographic 
record which reflects cataloging as if the item were 
the singular, original form of issue. The user is 
conveniently served by being able to view a chronology 
of. holdings (whether in ink print, microfilm, etc.) 
without having to carom from bibliographic record to 
bibliographic record in an attempt to piece together 
holdings under a particular title. 

Apart from newspaper records, it is often difficult 
to determine what LC holds of the titles represented by 
the CONSER records and in what form, much less which 
titles pass through the LC processing flow, but do not 
remain part of the collection. Currently, if users 
rely on the CONSER records made available through MUMS, 
at times they will be misled as to whether the item is 
held by LC. There are cases for which LC may hold a 
title, but the system automatically generates an 
unequivocal "NOT IN LC COLLECTION" header message. 
This problem occurs because as CONSER participants are 
adding records to the file that reflect their holdings 
of the title, the records have not yet been checked 
against LC holdings and the system assumes as a default 


option that the item is not in the LC collection. One 
should approach such a record with the assumption that 
LC indeed may hold the title and a reference librarian 
should be asked to telephone the Serial Record Division 
for confirmation. 

As for other "Does LC have it?" efforts, a new 
application, called SERLOC, has been added to MUMS 
which provides a mechanism Lo help begin the complex 
process of converting data elements from the manual 
holdings files maintained by the Serial Record Division 
into machine readable form. SERLOC (a versatile 
acronym: Ser ials Loc a t ions; or. Ser ials, Library o^f 
Congress) is 'in operation, and the conversion keying 
has begun already. 

A selection of data elements such as serial record 
entry, call number, purchase order number, and 
retention decision were identified for inclusion in 
SERLOC. These elements are essential in forming a 
multi-purpose core inventory record for the Serials 
Management System application (discussed below); they 
are also essential for expressing certain data about 
the item's status relative to LC's collection which 
cannot be carried in the bibliographic record. 

Although SERLOC records are designed to be the 
foundation for the yet to be developed automated 
inventory record, in the interim they give a 
Library-wide glimpse of the serial retention decisions, 
as well as the extent of our holdings on a title level 
(i.e., does LC have the item at all?). By virtue of 
being recorded in SERLOC, the status of many titles not 
retained will be made known (e.g., "Send unchecked to 
NLM"). Given the variety of powerful search keys 
available through MUMS, access to serials holdings will 
be exponentially improved, even though the detailed 
holdings information still resides in the manual files. 
The SERLOC record will point to the form of entry in 
the manual holdings file, helping overcome the obvious 
inadequacies of the single-entry approach to most 
holdings records. SERLOC also provides the potential 
of serving an APIF-like function for serials flowing 
through the processing stream. 

Having settled the question of whether or not LC is 
likely to have the title, the pressing concern of the 
user then becomes that of actually obtaining the piece 
sought. 

Is The Issue Available? 

The most promising avenue under exploration for 
achieving our goal of successfully delivering serials 
to users lies in the evolving Library-wide serials 
management system (SMS). The SMS will focus on 
receipts, inventory, and physical collection control 
aspects of LC's serials automation potential. It is 
anticipated that development of the SMS will span a six 
to eight year time period. Resulting conversion 
activities, which will involve conversion of over fifty 
manual serials check-in files (as well as the growing 
SERLOC file) and, ultimately, encoding of some two 
million active and inactive check-in records, could 
span over twenty years. Yet further would be the 
conversion of binding and other serials control files. 

This system will be designed to do more than 
provide an automated mechanism for recording serial 
holdings at the issue or piece level. It will attempt 
to unite and make more efficient the description of the 
Library's physical holding of serial material and unite 


10 







BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


that information with the bibliographic information 
systems that are already in place. Further, this 
system will help us bridge the "inventory gap," by 
aiding the process of comparing what we once had with 
what we now have. In the process, we will finally 
acquire in machine-readable form a collective picture 
of the Library's total population of serial titles and 
holdings. By offering an automated, distributed system 
to control this process, we can continue to allow 
multiple receipt locations for serials, but add the 
advantage of uniting all data about serials on one 
common machine-based file to which anyone can have 
access. 

For the first time, LC would have a reliable system 
that would automatically provide an alert when a 
subscription either goes astray or stops arriving 
altogether. By this process we can ensure full value 
from all acquisition sources and save considerable 
yearly expenditures in acquiring replacement issues 
lhat we otherwise could have claimed in time. This 
uniting of information about our serials collection 
will help guide personnel responsible for the selection 
and building of the serial collection, and help prevent 
duplication in ordering. 

As a step in ending user frustration with items 
"Not on Shelf," binding functions also will be included 
in the SMS. Linked to the check-in receipt function, 
it will be possible to predict for active cities on a 
subscription level the appropriate binding intervals 
and then to track the binding process. One can imagine 
that certain high-use serials could have binding 
scheduled in such a way as to ensure that loose issues 
remain available during their period of greatest 
demand, while at the same time not sacrificing the 
chance of assembling a full volume before the issues go 
as tray. 

The Optical Disk Pilot Project is one effort which 
holds the promise of ensuring, among other aims, that 
issues are never "Not on Shelf." A small number of 
popular serial titles have been digitized and recorded 
on optical disk. An indexing approach to the file has 
been developed to retrieve information contained on the 
disks. By this means, serial information can be 
preserved in disk form and retrieved in "full text" 
mode at the user's request, potentially providing a 
quantum leap in fulfilling user needs. 

Linda Bartley 

Serial Record Division 

Linda Miller 

Automation Planning and Liaison Office 


MDSIC: ONLINE AT LAST 


In January 1984, the Music Section of the Special 
Materials Cataloging Division became the first section 
in Processing Services to input and update 
bibliographic records online. The impact of automation 
on music catalogers is not just the story of Music 
Online, however. To assess the impact which automation 
has had on the music and sound recordings cataloging 
programs at the Library of Congress, it is necessary to 
take a brief look at the operations and 
responsibilities of the two sections involved and to 
consider the development of automated processes 
throughout Processing Services as they relate to all 
catalogers. 


What and How the Music Section Catalogs 

The Music Section is unique in both the scope and 
range of its responsibilities: it is responsible for 
the descriptive and subject cataloging of printed and 
manuscript music, i.e., scores, music sound recordings 
and monographs about music in English (U.S. imprints), 
Spanish, and Portuguese. It further is responsible 
for all other monographs about music and for all 
serials of or about music. The official shelflist for 
all music materials (classes M, ML, and MT) is housed 
in the section and is maintained by two music 
shelf listers, also members of the section. 

The majority of work centers in the cataloging of 
music scores and music sound recordings; some 4,500 
such items were cataloged in FY84, while only 600 books 
about music received complete cataloging in the section 
in the same period. The cataloging of music and sound 
recordings is unique in at least two respects - -f irst, 
no preliminary cataloging is done for these materials, 
and second, the music cataloger performs both the 
descriptive and subject cataloging. It is easy to see 
that the twelve catalogers, two shelf listers, and the 
section head face a variety of tasks each day and that 
adaptability to new and changing situations is a 
prerequisite for success in the job. Over the past 
seventeen years, developments in automation have drawn 
music catalogers away from the mainstream of cataloging 
and have tended to accentuate their need for 
independence and flexibility. 


Why Music Online Took Sixteen Years To Develop 

The years between 1968, when MARC records began to 
be made available, and 1984, when MARC music records 
finally were made available, were years of enormous 
change in cataloging generally, as the emphasis shifted 
from a manual system to one which was automated, a new 
cataloging code was implemented, and LC cataloging was 
made even more widely available in machine-readable 
form. Cataloging policies and directives, naturally 
enough, reflected these changes, and thus seemed less 
frequently applicable to music cataloging's 
old-fashioned, manual procedures. This was not 
unexpected, given the relatively small place of music 
cataloging in the overall scheme. On the one hand, at 
the end of FY84 some 300 catalogers completed 179,168 
items; on the other, the seventeen music and 
audiovisual catalogers had cataloged some 5,000 music 
scores and sound recordings, or not quite three percent 
of the total cataloging output. 


The MARC program began in 1968 with 
English-language monographs, additional languages and 
language groups being added throughout the next decade. 


11 








BIBLIOGRPHIC CONTROL 


In the mid-70's, there were two further developments 
which were of moment in the story of automation as it 
relates to music cataloging: the MARC Music format was 
published and the MARC Search Service, the Library's 
first online search capability, was made available. 

The MARC Music format—a somewhat inaccurate name, 
since the format covers music and nonmusic sound 
recordings as well as printed and manuscript music--had 
been developed by a group of music librarians working 
with Lenore Maruyama at LC. LC management said that 
the format would not be implemented immediately; it was 
felt that the limited resources available should be 
devoted to adding languages for book materials and, 
later, as implementation continued to be postponed, to 
development of the online books and authorities 
applications. The music library community, a 
well-defined and vocal constituency, as well as one 
which had had some measure of success in earlier 
lobbying efforts, began pressuring the Library to make 
music cataloging available in machine-readable form, 
even before the format was published, and it continued 
to push the Library until Music Online was 
implemented. 


Getting Closer 

The introduction of an online searching capability 
at LC had little impact on music catalogers or indeed 
on any catalogers, since the cataloging "universe" was 
still the card catalog, specifically the Official 
Catalog. In 1977, when authority records began to be 
input online, music catalogers were phased into this 
program with all the other catalogers. Up to this 
point, then, automation was affecting catalogers pretty 
much equally; although books catalogers had online 
access to bibliographic records they created, this 
access did not affect the catalogers' day-to-day work. 

The years 1978-80 were filled with planning for the 
implementation of AACR2. On the automation front, more 
languages were added to the MARC universe, with the 
Cyrillic and South Asian languages added last in their 
romanized forms, until by 1980 the acronym JACKPHY had 
been devised to stand for all the remaining languages 
not in MARC: Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, 
Persian, Hebrew, and Yiddish. Materials not yet in 
MARC were music and manuscripts. The music library 
community had continued to pressure LC to implement the 
music format, and LC had continued to cite programs 
which would benefit a larger constituency as having 
higher priority. 

It was in the planning for AACR2 that a decision 
was made which, although it did not seem so at the 
time, was to have the most significant impact on music 
cataloging resulting from automation up to the time of 
implementation of Music Online. The decision was made 
to create, once AACR2 was implemented in 1981, a new 
official catalog to contain AACR2 bibliographic 
records, authority records, and references. The 
further decision was made that for records in 
machine-readable form, only a main entry and a title 
card would be filed. This was Processing Services' 
first step away from the card catalog and toward 
reliance on the machine catalog, which up to that time 
had been only supplemental. For materials not in 
machine-readable form--the JACKPHY languages and 
music—full card sets would continue to be filed. A 
reasonable enough idea in theory, but in actuality, it 
did not work out. 


Music Cards Stop Being Printed and Filed 

AACR2 was implemented on January 3, 1981; until the 
summer of 1983--two and one half years—not a single 
card for music or sound recordings was ever filed in 
the add-on official catalog, nor, for that matter, in 
the catalogs of the Performing Arts Reading Room. And, 
when, at last, cards began to trickle into the catalog, 
only main entry and title cards were filed. This 
meant, in effect, that access was only through the main 
entry for most items. Because of the non-d is t inc t ive 
nature of the titles of many musical 
compositions—Symphony, Sonata, e t c .--re la t ive ly few 
title added entries were made. Other cards were not 
filed because the Government Printing Office (GPO), for 
some reason, had stopped overprinting card sets and had 
a backlog of thousands of them waiting. For JACKPHY 
language materials, this was not so disastrous, because 
romanized records input into APIF provided online 
access to the materials. But, for music materials, 
there was no access except through the temporary cards 
filed in the music shelflist and the sound recordings 
control file, each offering only the single means of 
access, either the classification number or the 
manufacturer's label name and number. 

In effect, then, the principal impact of automation 
at this period was that, because of progress in 
automation, music catalogers had no access to the 
bibliographic records which they had created. And, 
although AACR2 records are being retrospectively 
converted to machine-readable form, there is little 
hope that all these records will ever be input. The 
printed catalog, Music, Books on Music, and Sound 
Recordings will remain as the only comprehensive 
approach to materials cataloged from 1981-1983. This 
situation, naturally, could not have been tolerated if 
it had existed for English-language monographs. But, 
music catalogers were left to await implementation of 
Music Online, the development of which was now 
underway. 

Developing Music Online 

Music Online did not spring into being overnight. 
In 1980 talks about the automation of music cataloging 
began with OCLC, the idea then being that this would be 
the most cost-effective way to automate music 
cataloging. Negotiations with OCLC were underway when 
ASO expressed its willingness to develop a MUMS music 
application. ASO estimated that a music application 
could be made operational in six months; they proposed 
to do this by using much of the existing BOOKSM 
software. Over the next four years, as requirements 
were analyzed and written, and programming and testing 
went forward, all participants in the planning process 
learned a lot. 

It was decided early on, that the time had come to 
experiment again with online cataloging. An experiment 
in the beginning days of MARC, in which catalogers 
Lagged their own records, had proved unsuccessful. In 
the years which had passed, familiarity with MARC 
records and with computers in general had grown, and 
this was one factor in the decision. Another lay in 
the nature of the music cataloging process itself: a 
small and self-contained group of people carried out 
the entire range of processing activities for these 
materials--descriptive and subject cataloging and 
shelf listing. Many of the questions inherent in true 
online cataloging, implying as it does additions to a 


12 









BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


single record by many hands, would not need to be 
addressed. The staff was accustomed to work processes 
which differed from those of the majority of catalogers 
and it was believed that they were flexible enough to 
adapt to a new and still different cataloging 
environment. Further, the catalogers maintained that 
the coded data fields in the music format required 
expert music knowledge and thus, could not be properly 
applied, except by Lhe music catalogers. And, if the 
coding had to be supplied by the cataloger, why should 
they not go ahead and key the record online? 

During the years when Music Online was under 
development, the cataloging front was not static. AACR2 
had been implemented, and movements toward reliance on 
the machine catalog continued, culminating in 1983 with 
the implementation of TOSCA—Total Online Searching for 
Cataloging Activities. The cataloging universe now 
shifted from the card and machine catalogs to the 
machine catalog alone, with Lhe card catalog being 
relegated to the status of a reference tool. The music 
catalogers, who stood outside this activity awaiting 
implementation of Music Online, which had now been 
"imminent" for a couple of years, found themselves 
floundering. Directives for cataloging did not apply 
to them because their work was not in machine-readable 
form, yet it was expected that music would become so 
momentarily; it was left to the Music Section to write 
its own interim TOSCA procedures. 


Music Online Go e s Online 

On March 19, 1984 Music Online was fully 
operational, and catalogers began to integrate the 
processes of cataloging, content designation, and 
online input and update. Catalogers were not only 
being asked to supply tags for the traditional elements 
of Lhe bibliographic record; they also were asked to 
supply codes for the fixed field elements and Lhe coded 
data fields. In addition to the familiar Geographic 
Area Code and Language codes, Lhe music format also 
contains fields for coded music, specific information 
such as the form of composition and the medium of 
performance; there are nine additional fields in all. 
They were asked to perform all these activities at the 
terminal. A drop in productivity was almost 
inevitable, and it did indeed drop about 10 percent; 
just lately it has begun to rise again. 


Control 


To fully appreciate the magnitude of the task which 
the music catalogers undertook, it should be noted that 
music file records, which contain an average of 1,270 
characters, are more than twice as long as books 
records which contain an average 692 characters. Music 
records contain an average of 23 fields, while books 
records contain 15. Procedures established for quality 
control of these records called for their review first 
within Lhe Music Section and then by the MARC Editorial 
Division (MARC Ed) to ensure the consistency of content 
designation across applications. MARC Ed's review was 
extremely valuable, going beyond a simple review of 
content designation to alert us to editorial and 
content designation conventions established over the 
years and to catch typographical and other editorial 
errors which were much harder to spot on the screen 
than on paper. The first "report card" gave us only a 
61 percent overall accuracy rate; by January 1985 the 
Music Section had attained 94 percent and MARC Ed 
shifted to a 10 percent sampling. 


Prob lems 

Because automation met an urgent need, that of 
access to records, and because it brought music 
catalogers closer into line with other catalogers both 
within and outside the Library, Lhere was and continues 
to be a reluctance to complain about the shortcomings 
of the system. It is far from ideal, however. 
Following are some of the more significant of the 
interesting problems, not all of which are unique to 
music. 

The principal drawback of input and update in Lhe 
music application is that it was adapted from the books 
application, developed for use by inputters, not 
catalogers. The basic design consideration seems to 
have been based on the concept of a person who would 
sit at a terminal with a completed catalog record and 
input this record, adding the content designation. In 
the music application, the cataloger is expected to 
create a record "from scratch" online, and this is a 
completely different concept. This causes problems in 
several regards. First, there is no prompt screen. The 
person who creates a record, keys a command and is 
presented with a list of numbered "boxes", representing 
the fixed fields. That's it! The remainder of the 
screen is blank. This is not a problem if one is 
inputting from a worksheet, but it is an entirely 
inadequate display for a person cataloging a score or 
recording which is in hand at the terminal. 

Second, the idea that the fixed field values are to 
be input first, completely misses the mark for a 
cataloger. The fixed field values can only be supplied 
reliably when the cataloging is complete; so, for 
online cataloging, logically, they should be input as 
the last step, not the first. The current arrangement, 
which encourages supplying these values at the 
beginning of the record creation process, means that a 
value supplied on the basis of the first examination of 
the item may not be changed, if, in the process of 
cataloging a different value is found to be 
appropriate. The particular case in which this has 
proved troublesome to music catalogers is in dates 
coding; often, information that an item is a reprint or 
that a sound recording was recorded earlier is not 
evident on the first examination. To supply all the 
fixed field data once the other bibliographic data has 
been input would lead to greater accuracy. 

Third, online input/update policies tend to be 
"MARC-Ed-centric." In addition to the problem 
mentioned above with the fixed field input, content 
designation policies have often been rigidly prescribed 
for coding on the basis of terminology in the 
cataloging record. Such rigidity is not always 
necessary for music catalogers who, with the item in 
hand, see the total picture rather than the selected 
information which appears in the cataloging record. 

Retrieval Capabilities 

Music records are retrievable by all the means 
currently available in MUMS, and although this goes far 
beyond’the capabilities available to our colleagues who 
catalog via OCLC and RLIN, there are important points 
of access for music records which should have been made 
available and are not. Because of the timing of Books 
Release 5.2, integrated indexing, and the stage of 
development of Music Online at the time those 
requirements were set, no new retrieval capabilities 
were added; therefore, two of the most important fields 
in music records are not indexed: publisher and plate 


13 





BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


numbers. For sound recordings* the publisher's 
number provides a unique identifier through the label 
name and number; for printed music the plate or 
publisher's number does the same. These numbers will 
be increasingly useful as the file grows. For 
instance* a search for one of the 32 Beethoven piano 
sonatas using the search key "patk bee,son;f=mus," 
retrieves some 119 records. Not too many records to go 
through* but then the music file contains only 10,000 
records; what will happen as the file grows? As it 
grows, and the number of records which match such 
nondisLinctive search keys grows, more specific search 
capabilities will be essential. 

Finally, a relatively minor--yel dissonant -_ point 
is the traditional disregarding of special characters 
in machine indexing. Consider the results of searching 
a large database for a music key when the flat (b) and 
sharp (#) signs are disregarded: the keys of E and 
E-flat can only be retrieved together* as though they 
are the same! 

Catalogers remain enthusiastic about Music Online, 
nonetheless, and consider that its advantages, 
principally the access to the records, outweigh the 
disadvantages. An indication of the enthusiasm with 
which this cataloging program has been adopted is the 
eagerness with which music catalogers look forward to 
online cataloging for books and input of authority 
records. Because most of their work is done online, 
returning to the cumbersome world of change requests, 
change records, and the hold file when cataloging 
books, makes them very appreciative of the relative 
ease with which records for music and sound recordings 
can be created and updated. Being pioneers in the 
concept of online cataloging is exciting, and the 
amount of interest expressed from those, the majority, 
who have not yet begun to work with the online system 
for input and update is gratifying. 

Catherine Garland 

Special Materials Cataloging 


VISUAL MATERIALS ONLINE 

The Library of Congress has taken what is probably 
the most significant step towards achieving a mechanism 
for bibliographic control of some of its most valuable 
collections. The Visual Materials Online system brought 
together staff in three separate divisions -- Specia 1 
Materials Cataloging Division in Processing Services 
and the Prints and Photographs (P&P) and the Motion 
Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound divisions 
(M/B/RS) in Research Services--to create 
machine-readable cataloging records for a diverse group 
of materials. 

Daniel Boorstin's view of the Library as a multi- 
media encyclopedia calls attention to the tremendous 
non-book resources in the collections. What the 
multimedia encyclopedia has lacked up to now is a 
comprehensive, integrated index, the lack of which has 
hampered access to ail forms of material that were not 
integrated into the general catalogs of the Library of 
Congress. 

A Cooperative Project 

Visual Materials Online has been a cooperative 
endeavor between Processing and Research Services* 


which have not always seen eye-to-eye on the theory, 
form, and process of bibliographic control. The idea 
of an integrated catalog for books and non-book 
materials has been advanced in library literature and 
in practice for decades, but the Library of Congress 
has been fairly slow in extending its automated 
cataloging operations to all forms of material. The 
recent publication FIND: Automation at the L i brary of 
Cong r ess, t h e FirsL Twenty-Five Ye ars a nd Beyon d by 
Peter T. Rohrbach leaves the impression that 
machine-readable cataloging (MARC) was smoothly applied 
to non-book material. 

In fact* with the exception of serials and maps, 
MARC programs for non-book materials in the Library's 
collections have only recently been implemented. The 
Music Online system was implemented in 1984, eight 
years after development of the MARC Music format. MARC 
records for manuscripts (in a format very different 
from that published in 1973) are currently in 
development. While MARC records for films have been 
created since 1972, these records have not been 
available online and very few of the records are for 
items in the Library's collections. Visual Materials 
Online will further bridge the chasm between format 
development and Library implementation, thus marking a 
major milestone in building the index to the multimedia 
encycloped la. 


Audiovisual S e ction Cataloging Pr ogram 

The Audiovisual Section in the Special Materials 
Cataloging Division (Processing Services) operates a 
cooperative cataloging program which began in 1952 and 
has been carried out under the Copyright Office and the 
Descriptive Cataloging Division in the past. This 
program is aimed at meeting the cataloging needs of 
libraries that collect audiovisual materials. 
Cataloging data is supplied by producers and distri¬ 
butors of educational audiovisual materials, including 
motion pictures, videorecordings, filmstrips, slide 
sets, and transparency sets. By and large, these 
materials are not in the collections of the Library of 
Congress. Audiovisual Section cataloging features 
AACR2 full-level records which have been in MARC since 
1972; with the implementation of Visual Materials 
Online the records will be available online in the MUMS 
system. Over 70,000 audiovisual records created under 
the batch MARC Films system will be loaded to the file, 
indexed, and will become part of the default MUMS 
search files. 

Audiovisual Section catalogers are experienced in 
online cataloging in the MUMS environment, since they 
have been cataloging non-music sound recordings through 
the Music Online system. Visual Materials Online marks 
the transition to a complete online cataloging 
operation in the Audiovisual Section. No major change 
in the scope or output of Processing Services 
audiovisual cataloging is planned as a result of Visual 
Materials Online, but changes may be made gradually in 
the scope of the cataloging program as libraries begin 
to collect new and different types of audiovisual 
material, e.g., videodiscs. A greater degree of 
cooperation with M/B/RS brought about by Visual 
Materials Online means that records created for motion 
pictures and videorecordings in Processing Services' 
cooperative program will be adapted by M/B/RS when 
those titles are held by the Library. 


14 












BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


In addition to card catalogs and limited 
machine-readable records, book catalogs with full 
descriptions and name and subject indexes for some 
collections have been published (or will be in the near 
future). These include The T heodore Roosevelt Memoria l 
Association Catalog ; The George Kleine F ilm Coll ection 
Catalog ; and Te le visio n Progra ms i n the Libra r y o f 
Congress: Progr ams Ava ilabl e fo r R esea rch as of 
December 1979 . The Roosevelt and Kleine catalogs were 
produced from MARC records created in M/B/RS in the 
1970's. These records will become part of the new 
Visual Materials Online file. Another M/B/RS 
automation project, the Nitrate Control System, 
provides a limited amount of cataloging data in 
machine-readable form. The Nitrate system contains 
inventory-level records for films on nitrate stock in 
Suitland, MD and Dayton, OH. The system is used to 
track materials through the preservation process and 
keep track of deterioration of film until it can be 
transferred to safety stock. Records for most of the 
nitrate collections have been input. 

M/B/RS will use the Visual Materials Online system 
to create mostly full records for some current and some 
retrospective acquisitions. Records will contain 
access points for names of companies and individuals 
associated with the works and access by LC subject 
headings. Name headings will be in AACR2 form as 
established in the Name Authority File. Additional 
access points for the genre of films will be created, 
but will not be accessible online until the next major 
release of the MUMS retrieval system. When a record 
created by the Audiovisual Section in Processing 
Services already exists for a title in the collection, 
this record will be adapted to show that it is held by 
LC. A project may be set up to find and adapt those of 
the 70,000+ existing MARC cooperative cataloging 
records which represent titles in the collections. Some 
less-than-full records will be included in the file as 
will preliminary records for materials which have not 
yet received full cataloging. 

P&P's Cataloging Program 

The extensive collections (some 12 million items) 
of the Prints and Photographs Division have been 
organized, cataloged, and indexed in a variety of ways. 
Individual items or groups of items (or "lots") related 
by topical orientation, by provenance, by creator, or 
by medium are processed according to their documentary 
or aesthetic value and may be afforded access by 
physical arrangement of the materials, cataloging by 
lot, and/or indexing of individual items. A large 
number of vertical files for direct access to 
materials; card catalogs for various collections with 
access by title, proper name, and topical headings; and 
indices for individual items within collections are 
available for consultation in the reading room. Word 
processing equipment has helped to some degree, but the 
vast collections and high demand desperately need 
automated control and access. Items which were filmed 
for the optical disk project will be accessed through a 
microcomputer catalog connected to the disc player. 
Prints and Photographs Division plans to use the Visual 
Materials Online system to create records which will be 
accessible to researchers throughout the Library, and, 
with distribution of MARC records, throughout the 
world. 

Records in the online system will be mainly at the 
collection or sub-unit level, as it would be impossible 
to create individual records for the millions of 


graphic items in the collection. Single graphic items 
which warrant full cataloging will also be cataloged. 
Abbreviated records will be created as soon as a newly 
processed collection is available to the public, and 
the record will be augmented as the collection is 
cataloged. P&P has plans to input collection-level 
records for materials which are in the micro¬ 
computer/videodisc data base, so that the MUMS files 
will serve as a pointer to collections accessible on 
videodisc. 

Visual Materia ls Onl ine S y stem Development 

The Music Online system became the impetus and the 
model for the development of the Visual Materials 
Online system. Music Online was unique in h a v i n; 
catalogers create and input bibliographic records, 
including full content designation. The Music system 
was considered one of the most up-to-date MUMS 
applications (and one of the best documented). The 
staff of the Audiovisual Section was successfully using 
the Music system to create records for non-music sound 
recordings. Many of the same key staff members in the 
Automated Systems Office, the Automation Planning and 
Liaison Office in Processing Services, and the Special 
Materials Cataloging Division, who participated in the 
development of Music Online have also helped to develop 
Visual Materials Online. All of these factors 
contributed to an accelerated system development 
schedule; when work on the Visual Materials System 
began in June of 1984, a target date of early 1985 was 
set for system implementation, and, in fact, it was 
implemented in November 1985. 

Some aspects of the Visual Materials Online system 
were in fact more complex than the Music system. Music 
Online started with a clean slate—all records input 
would be new and would conform to AACR 2. For Visual 
Materials a strategy needed to be developed for 
converting the existing MARC Films records (more than 
70,000) from the LC internal format to the MUMS format 
and then loading and indexing these records in the 
online file. The file conversion had to handle records 
created under three different eras of cataloging rules 
and also had to account for numerous changes made to 
the MARC format since 1972. When the conversion is 
completed, many MARC data elements will be upgraded. 
The converted records will be loaded and will be made 
via the queues developed for the Linked System Project; 
this technique will pass the records through the edit 
and validation checks of the Visual Materials Online 
system and content designation errors will be reported 
so that they can be corrected online. 

Conelusion 

The Visual Materials Online system will provide an 
important tool for non-book cataloging programs at the 
Library of Congress. The system will not bring about 
bibliographic control overnight, but will be the 
important first step toward mainstreaming the 
cataloging process for archival motion pictures and 
graphic materials. Although some retrospective 
cataloging ‘efforts are planned, the online system will, 
for the foreseeable future, be a supplement to existing 
manual files in Research Services. The system may be 
lacking in "bells and whistles," but the truly 
innovative feature will be its use by three separate 
processing staffs creating cataloging records for 
disparate types of materials. New data elements 
defined for the MARC Visual Materials format will be in 
place, but it will be some time before these new 


15 











BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


elements are accessible online. Even with these 
shortcomings, Visual Materials Online represents vastly 
improved access to these invaluable collections of 
materials which have, up to now, been available only to 
readers who sought out the specialized reading rooms of 
the Library. Visual Materials Online may gradually 
bring about changes in public service by making the 
multimedia encyclopedia a more tangible reality. 

Richard J. Thaxter 

Special Materials Cataloging Division 


CJK: 

CHINESE/JAPANESE/KOREAN CATALOGING 

For the past fifteen years, computer technology has 
played an increasingly important role in libraries for 
the cataloging, inventory, and circulation of books and 
other materials. Printed materials in languages with 
roman alphabets were the first to be brought under 
automated control, as computers and their roman 
alphabet keyboards were readily available for this 
purpose. Library systems oriented toward the 
processing of roman language materials are thus well 
developed and some even quite sophisticated. 

Development 

During this relatively rapid development of roman 
language processing systems, the vernacular languages 
were left far behind. Technological as well as 
financial considerations held back their automation, 
pending a more favorable climate for research and 
development. It was not until 1979 that the Library of 
Congress decided that technology was capable of 
supporting the automated cataloging of vernacular 
languages. The Library's Orientalia collection had 
been growing at such a high rate, that the time clearly 
had come to search for more rapid input and access of 
bibliographic records. This conclusion also had been 
reached by the joint advisory committee of the East 
Asian Library Program, a group composed of 
representatives of the Social Science Research Council, 
the Association of Research Libraries and the American 
Council of Learned Societies. In the fall of 1979, the 
Library entered into an agreement with the Research 
Libraries Group (RLG) to develop an automated system 
for Chinese, Japanese and Korean vernacular language 
cataloging. By this agreement the Library would 
cooperate with RLG in system development, and once the 
development was completed would use the system 
(hereafter called the RLG/CJK system) on a trial basis. 

The New System 

Four years later, RLG unveiled a completed system 
ready for a trial run. Manufactured by Transtech of 
Massachusetts, the CJK terminal is a modified version 
of the SINOTERM, a Chinese word processor, marketed 


chiefly on Taiwan. It consists of a CRT display and a 
keyboard with 179 keys, of which 133 are character 
keys, 36 are function keys, and ten are control keys. 
The character keys contain parts of Chinese (and 
Japanese) characters, the Japanese syllabic systems 
(Katakana and hiragana) symbols, as well as the symbols 
for the Korean Hangul system. Chinese characters and 
Korean Hangul are created by combining components from 
different keys in a specified order at the bottom line 
of the screen, called the "scratch pad." Once the 
desired sequence of components is entered there, 
pressing the space bar will cause them to be combined 
into one character and moved to the cursor location on 
the screen proper. Improper component sequences are 
signaled by a beeping sound and positioning of the 
scratch pad cursor on the inappropriate component. The 
central portion of the keyboard also contains a mostly 
standard roman letter/arabic numeral arrangement. The 
character sets can be selected by pressing the 
appropriate character selection key: Chinese (Han 
tzu), Japanese (Kana), Korean (Hangul), or roman. 
Characters from these sets can be mixed together as 
needed, simply by switching from one set to the other. 

The CJK terminals are usually clustered together in 
groups of four, with the clusters being connected to a 
controller, which is in turn linked to RLIN's main 
computer via a telephone line. The controllers contain 
a local dictionary of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean 
character sets, which can be expanded to accommodate 
additional characters. Each cluster also includes a 
dot matrix printer, which can print each of the three 
character sets plus roman. The print resolution for 
CJK is quite high, and each character is surprisingly 
distinct. This is true even for those characters which 
consist of a large number of components. 

CJK monographic cataloging is input into the RLIN 
data base via these terminals. Cataloging workscreens 
consist of a standard RLIN input (catalog/create) 
screen, plus a code indicating the presence of 
vernacular fields and the vernacular fields themselves, 
which are parallel to the romanized fields. 


Syllable Aggregation System 

Due to certain storage and searching limitations 
imposed on the Research Libraries Information Network 
(RLIN) system by word length, it was necessary to 
devise a so-called "syllable aggregation system" for 
Chinese. Of the CJK languages, Chinese was the only 
one which did not yet have such a scheme, since that 
language has traditionally — though erroneously —been 
viewed as possessing a monosyllabic word structure. 
This view was supported by the fact that Chinese 
characters represent sounds of only one syllable and do 
not connect with one another. Therefore, they appear to 
be individual words. Until fairly recently, virtually 
all romanized renderings of Chinese characters have 
been syllable-by-syllable. The syllable aggregation 
system constitutes a recognition of the polysyllabic 
nature of Chinese and represents a highly specialized 
attempt to provide a systematic method for combining 
syllables based not only on semantic grounds, but also 
on RLIN system requirements. Since the RLIN system does 
not recognize two-letter words in a string, 
aggregation, for the most part, has solved this by 
creating longer search key units. 


16 








BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


Staff Training 

The first CJK terminals were delivered to LC in the 
spring of 1983. Training in the use of these terminals 
was provided for a small group of volunteers from the 
Preliminary Cataloging and Chinese-Korean Cataloging 
Sections in the Descriptive Cataloging Division, the 
Preparatory and Japanese Cataloging Sections in the 
Shared Cataloging Division, Subject Cataloging (Asian 
Section), and Decimal Classification. After being 
trained, these catalogers participated in a pilot 
project to determine the best workflow configuration 
for processing CJK materials, that is, what portion of 
a record would be completed by Preliminary/Preparatory 
Cataloging and what portion would be completed by 
Chinese-Korean/Japanese descriptive cataloging. 

Four plans were devised to make this determination. 
Each of these altered the amount of work to be done by 
the sections. Materials followed a normal path 
through processing: Preliminary (or Preparatory) 
Cataloging—Chinese-Korean, or Japanese Descriptive 
Cataloging—Subject Cataloging (Asian Section)—Decimal 
Classification—Shelflisting. The project was carried 
out from October 1, 1983 to November 6, 1984. Data 
gathering continued while LC awaited the arrival of 
additional terminals and training materials, and 
concluded a satisfactory implementation agreement with 
the Professional Guild of the Library. 

Analysis of the data indicated that the workflow 
scenario showing the greatest processing velocity was 
the one in which the Preliminary and Preparatory 
Cataloging sections supplied some of the fixed fields 
and roman/vernacular fields up to and including the 4xx 
(series) field. The cataloging record would then be 
completed by Descriptive, Subject, and Decimal 
Classification. 

Training and phase-in of all CJK catalogers 
commenced in November 1984. The training consisted of 
classroom instruction in MARC (RLIN) tagging and 
practice in character creation and cataloging on CJK 
terminals. Since each cataloger did not have a 
terminal, scheduling was necessary. This did not 
impede the learning process, however, since the 
training and phase-in periods were so long that 
everyone had sufficient hands-on experience by the time 
they resumed cataloging operations in June 1985. The 
necessity for scheduling remains, however, and will 
continue indefinitely. 

Catalogers in Descriptive, Shared, Subject and 
Decimal Classification found the CJK system easy to use 
after the training period, and efficient scheduling of 
terminal use has allowed them enough time for online 
cataloging activities. 

Frustration is felt, however, over system 
interruptions resulting in loss of work in progress. 
Interruptions are reported in a "down-time log." An 
examination of the data gathered from these logs during 
the period covering the first three months of the 
phase-in period, showed that the effect of down-time 
and other interruptions on productivity is marginal. It 
is anticipated that further improvements in hardware 
and telecommunications will lead to greater overall 
system reliability, which in turn will result in some 
increase in productivity and alleviate the frustration 
felt by catalogers when the system is not operational. 


Workflow 

During the phase-in period, it became apparent that 
cataloging in Descriptive and Shared was being 
performed at a more rapid pace than before 
implementation of the CJK system, because 
Pre 1 iminary/Preparatory Catalogers are responsible for 
major portions of both the romanized and vernacular 
fields in the records. This accounts for the slowdown 
in those sections and the corresponding speed-up in 
Shared/Descriptive. In addition, RLIN system 
interruptions can result in record loss at the 
preliminary cataloging stage, since those catalogers 
are starting from scratch, rather than building on a 
record which already has been stored in the system. 
Descriptive catalogers at worst will lose a few fields 
if the system is interrupted, since they work primarily 
on records that are already part of the data base. The 
net effect of this distribution of work is a decrease 
of materials going to Descriptive Cataloging. It is 
believed that the two additional terminals which have 
been provided for the use of Preliminary and 
Preparatory catalogers will allow them to keep up with 
the demands placed on them by this change in workflow. 


To date, approximately 14,000 CJK records have been 
input into the RLIN system by LC catalogers. This 
represents a major contribution to a data base, which 
also is being augmented by the 20 other CJK 
participating institut ions. Records can be retrieved 
either by vernacular or romanized search keys. CJK 
records Lhus can be separated from non-CJK records by 
performing vernacular or aggregated syllable searches. 

Another benefit to those retrieving data from the 
CJK system is the ease of identifying and understanding 
information presented in a vernacular form. This will 
prove to be a major factor in the resolution of name 
authority conflicts. Furthermore, in a language having 
few syllable types, such as Chinese, words appearing in 
aggregated form are more easily understood, once again 
allowing for ready identification of titles and other 
data present in romanized cataloging records. 

The Future 

The RLG/CJK system has already proven itself to be 
an efficient means for input and retrieval of 
vernacular language bibliographic records, and as such 
represents a significant advance in library automation. 
Now that this system has gained general acceptance and 
is being used by an increasing number of libraries, 
another system designed to perform the same activities 
has appeared on the horizon: the OCLC CJK system. It 
is based on a different approach to input and access, 
the exclusive use of romanization, plus, in the case of 
Chinese, tone numbers following syllables. As the OCLC 
system is scheduled for testing late in 1985, it is not 
possible yet to assess its performance or compatibility 
with the RLG system. In light of the imminence of the 
Linked Systems Project, one can only hope that the two 
CJK systems will eventually follow the same path as the 
roman language bibliographic data bases which have 
preceded them. 

Fred Protopappas 

Descriptive Cataloging Division 


17 







BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


COPICS: A MILESTONE IN LIBRARY AUTOMATION 

The Copyright Office is no stranger to computer 
technology. As early as July 1962, two years before 
Gilbert W. King's report Automation and the Library of 
Congress (1964), the Library's Computer Task Force 
Committee decided to explore possibilities for using 
computer and electronic processing in connection with 
copyright functions. And, in 1965, the Copyright 
Office faced the challenge of indexing the public 
hearings on the Copyright Revision Bill (House Resolu¬ 
tions 4347, 5680, and 6835; 89th Congress, 1st 

Session). Using a small IBM 1401 computer, it prepared 
a subject/name index to 1,930 pages of printed text. 

That minor achievement is significant because it 
places the Copyright Office among the Library's 
front-runners in using computer technology for 
practical applications. But nearly ten years later, 
Copyright reached a historical milestone, not only 
within its own office, but within the Library of 
Congress. In September 1974, the Copyright Office 
installed an automated, on-line system for cataloging 
copyright registrations. Known by the acronym COPICS, 
(Copyright Office Publication and Interactive 
Cataloging System), it has the distinction of being the 
Library's first major on-line cataloging system. 

COPICS: 1974-1977 

The 1974 implementation of COPICS represented a huge 
step forward in the work-processing methods of the 
Copyright Office. Its interactive entry and update 
capabilities allowed the office to provide accurate, 
efficient, and controlled data for copyright registra¬ 
tions. From the beginning, the automated system had 
three primary goals: 

1. Preparation and editing of catalog entries covering 
all copyright registrations. 

2. Duplication and sorting of ail catalog cards. 

3. Production of camera-ready copy for the Catalog of 
Copyright Entries (CCE). 

The entry portion of the automated system used a CRT 
formatted display to prompt catalogers, revisers, and 
reviewers to make corrections and up-dates on-line. 
Sixty terminals, connected by telephone line to the 
Library's central computer site, were installed in the 
Copyright Office, located then at the Crystal Mall 
Annex in Arlington, Virginia. 


COPICS began with copyright registrations for sound 
recordings. In 1975, it provided camera-ready copy for 
the Catalog of Copyright Entries, Part 13: Sound 

Recordings , covering registrations from February to 
December 1972. It was gradually phased into 
Cataloging's three divisions, Arts, Music, and Books. 
Periodical registrations were added to the system in 
1976. And, in the same year, plans were undertaken to 
retrieve copyright bibliographic entries using the 
Library's SCORPIO system. 

During the early years of COPICS, the basic problems 
encountered by any new automation venture were 
resolved, and the system brought under bibliographic 
control the creative and intellectual works submitted 
for copyright registration. COPICS was the largest 
on-line cataloging system in the world. 

Copyright's on-line cataloging success is directly 
related to the flexibility of its software program and 
of the automation specialists who developed the appli¬ 


cation. At no time did that adaptability manifest 
itself more substantially, perhaps, than during the 
year 1977. COPICS was then revised to meet the new 
requirements of the Copyright Law of 1976 (Public Law 
94-553). The expanded and updated system, called 
COPICS II to distinguish it from its progenitor, 
allowed not only for new classes of copyright regis¬ 
trations, but also for new data elements and for 
on-line retrieval. Coinciding with the effective date 
of the new copyright law, it became operational on 
January 1, 1978. 

COPICS: 1978-1985 


Scope and Input Sources . The most obvious enhance¬ 
ment of COPICS as revised to meet the requirements of 
the Copyright Law of 1976, is the on-line capability to 
control bibliographically all published and unpublished 
works registered for United States copyright protec¬ 
tion. Eight classes of registrations became effective 
in 1978: 

* Nondraraatic Literary Works (Class TX, excluding 
serials and periodicals) 

* Serials and Periodicals (Class TX) 

* Performing Arts (Class PA, excluding motion pictures 
and filmstrips, but including musical works, dramatic 
works, pantomimes, and choreographic works) 

* Motion Pictures and Filmstrips (Class PA) 

* Visual Arts (Class VA, excluding cartographic 
materials but including all other pictorial, graphic, 
and sculptural works) 

* Maps (Class VA) 

* Sound Recordings (Class SR) 

* Renewals (Class RE) 

In the fall of 1984, a new category of registrations 
was added for Mask Works (Class MW, computer chips). 
Prior to that expansion, COPICS had been updated to 
allow for the on-line cataloging of copyright docu¬ 
ments. These legal records include transfers of copy¬ 
rights, termination notices, identification of 
anonymous and pseudonymous authors, statements 
indicating the living or deceased status of an author, 
and statements identifying that a copyright notice name 
is in error. 


The present COPICS system allows for complete 
on-line cataloging and editing. Each entry consists of 
two parts: bibliographic data and copyright (legal 
facts) data. Bibliographic data are taken from the 
deposit copies that accompany each registration. To 
the extent available and applicable, each entry for 
monographic registrations (aLI classes except serials) 
includes the following bibliographic information: 
title, statement of authorship, edition statement, 
imprint, physical description, series statement, cast 
credits, in-analytical statement, International 
Standard Book Number, notes, and contents titles. Cross 
references are included also. Monographic regis¬ 
trations, again to the degree applicable and available, 
include essential copyright legal facts: limitations on 
the claim, claimant name, in-notice name, application 
title and author, information concerning previous 
registration, new matter appearing in the copy being 
registered, date of creation, date of publication, 
in-notice date, date of registration, and miscellaneous 
registration information. 

Data fields for serial registrations may include: 
title, edition information, frequency, parallel titles, 
subtitles, statement of responsibility, imprint, series 
statement, notes. International Standard Serials 
Number, copyright fac’ts, last claimant name, last 
volume, and holdings. 


18 









BIBLIOGRAPHIC CONTROL 


For documents, the data fields include: information 
identifying the type of document, full document range, 
date of recordation, date of execution, assignor, 
assignee, first title and information regarding the 
document as a whole, individual titles within the 
document, and cross reference. 

Hold in gs and Storage Media . The current machine 
readable COPICS database covers all registrations and 
documents received since January 1, 1978. It includes 
a monograph file of about 2.5 million registration 
records, a serial file of approximately 51,000 titles 
representing approximately 700,000 registration 
records, and a document file of approximately 500,000 
records. 

On-Li ne Pr oducts and Ser vices . In addition to its 
on-line cataloging capabilities, COPICS generates three 
types of on-line products and services. First, it 
provides and sorts computer-produced catalog cards for 
title, author, and claimant index terras. Miscellaneous 
index terras may be created for imprint data appearing 
in maps and sound recordings. Until January 1982, 
these cards were used internally to maintain accurate 
manual records in the Copyright Card Catalog. At that 
time, however, it was decided to close the card 
catalog, except for serial registrations, and to rely 
solely on the COPICS-based retrieval system. Sets of 
catalog cards continue to be produced, nonetheless, for 
internal use elsewhere in the Library of Congress: 
Geography and Map Division; Motion Picture, 
Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division; and the Music 
Division. They are also distributed to outside sub¬ 
scribers through the Library's Cataloging Distribution 
Service. 

Second, COPICS generates camera-ready copy for the 
Catalog of Copyright Entries (CCE), issued according to 
individual classes of copyright registrations. Entries 
in the CCE appear in International Standard Book 
Description format, and each catalog is divided into 
two parts. The first part is arranged alphabetically 
by title; the second, alphabetically by author/claimant 
name. All parts of the CCE are published semiannually 
except Nondramatic Literary Works and Performing Arts, 
which are published quarterly. Since 1979, the CCE, 
which has been published only in microfiche, has been 
available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office. 

The third on-line product created by COPICS is the 
automated bibliographic retrieval system. Both the 
Copyright Office History Monograph (COHM) file and the 
Copyright Office History Document (COHD) file are 
SCORPIO subsystems, accessible on-line through the 
Library of Congress Information System (LOCIS). The 
COHM file contains 4.1 million index terms; COHD has 
546,851 index terms. Both retrieval systems are up¬ 
dated weekly. Plans are under way for automated 
retrieval of copyright registrations for serials and 
periodicals. 

COPICS: 1985 and Beyo nd 

If the basic premise of automation in a library is 
to speed and improve the functions of acquiring infor¬ 
mation, recording it bibliographically, and making it 
available to users, the COPICS system has scored a 
decided success. And it has done so with greater 
effectiveness and improved productivity. For example, 
in 1978 when the system became operational under the 
new copyright law, Che ninety member Copyright Office 


Cataloging Division staff cataloged 365,000 registra¬ 
tions on-line. Since that time, copyright registra¬ 
tions have shown a twenty-two percent increase, 
totaling an estimated 520,000 registrations in fiscal 
year 1985. Yet staffing in the Cataloging Division for 
1985 remains at the level of ninety individuals. That 
the same number of staff have been able to provide 
continued bibliographic and legal access for an ever- 
increasing number of registrations underscores the 
effectiveness of on-line cataloging in the Copyright 
Office. 

It would seem unlikely that on-line productivity in 
the Cataloging Division can continue to increase at the 
same rate in years to come. The Copyright Office, 
however, remains strong in its commitment to offer 
improved services through COPICS. Until March 1984 the 
COHM and COHD history retrieval files were available 
only within the Copyright Office. Since that time both 
files have been accessible from any terminal 
communicating with the Library's mainframe computer. 
The development of a serial registration retrieval 
system will complete the process of allowing on-line 
access to all copyright records. The next logical and 
inevitable step—one that may precede the serial 
retrieval system—will be the distribution of computer 
tapes for all copyright registrations and documents. 


The Copyright Office continues to make advances in 
on-line technology. In the fall of 1985 , it offered 
its entire Cataloging Division staff an ergonomic 
skills training program designed to make the task of 
on-line work easier and still more efficient than 
before. Shortly thereafter the same training was given 
to all Copyright employees involved in automation. 
Developed by the Joyce Institute, the Dataspan program 
is designed to improve health and comfort and to 
improve productivity by making optimum use of 
technology. 

Copyright's application of ergonomic skills training 
within an on-line cataloging environment is another 
first with the Library of Congress. It is a second 
milestone in automation for COPICS. 

Brent L. Kendrick 
Copyright Office 


19 











COLLECTIONS CONTROL AND DELIVERY 


AUTOMATED COLLECTIONS CONTROL 

The Library of Congress coLLeetions are an 
incredible treasure trove. Their value, however, is 
in direct proportion to their accessibility, both 
bibliographic and physical. Over the past twenty years 
the Library has made significant strides toward the 
application of automation to the need for bibliographic 
accessibility. Future years will see those strides 
matched by similar progress in the application of 
automation to the need for physical accessibility to 
the collections. This is not to say that nothing has 
been done yet; much of what has taken place in the 
bibliographic automation arena has helped lay the 
groundwork for automated physical collection control. 
Moreover, automated applications addressing some 
aspects of physical collection control have been 
developed, the Book Paging, batch Government Loan and 
Automated Book Conveyor systems being cases in point. 
The coming years will .see efforts to develop not only 
additional applications in support of physical 
collection control, but also to coordinate and 
integrate them into a coherent whole. 

All this sounds terrific, but what does it actually 
mean? Basically, that through the use of automation, 
the Library of Congress in time will be able to more 
fully answer the primary questions that confront both 
those who use and those who maintain library 
collections: Do we have a given item? Is it available 
for use? How quickly may I see it? And if it is not 
available, why not? 

Size o f the Col lec tion s 

While these questions may seem mundane, answering 
them within the context of one of the world's largesL 
archival collections is no mean feat. Collections 
Management and the Loan divisions, as well as many 
special divisions throughout the Library work valiantly 
to answer them. However, the enormous and ever growing 
size of the collections, at last count well over eighty 
million items, coupled wit*h cuts in funding and 
personnel, makes the task increasingly difficult to 
perform manually. Automation will help ease the task. 

Ironically, the systems being developed to provide 
physical collection control may be obviated in time by 
the use of technology such as optical disk storage. 
Given the magnitude of the LC collections, it will be 
literally years, possibly decades, before conversion to 
such technology could remove the need for physical 
collection control. The Library cannot simply wait to 
be overtaken by the course of events, if only because 
the time involved may be so great. Moreover, there are 
portions of the LC collections which may never be 
considered appropriate candidates for other than 
physical storage and control. 

Cavea ts 

While automation will greatly aid in the physical 
control of the Library of Congress collections, several 
caveats must be noted. First, the magnitude of the 
collections will affect the development and use of 
automated physical collection control applications to 
some extent in the same way that it will affect the use 
of alternative technologies such as optical disk 
storage and retrieval. Although the Library's various 
machine-readable bibliographic files will provide a 
head start in the capture of copy specific information 
in machine-readable form, additional data still must be 
input. 


Also, the machine-readable item identifiers 
(commonly referred to as Piece Identification Numbers, 
or PINs) must be affixed to the individual collection 
items so that they can be accurately identified with a 
minimum of data entry as they move about the Library. 
The logistics of affixing PIN labels and accurately 
linking them to the appropriate machine-readable 
bibliographic and physical inventory information is no 
small task in terras of time, effort or money. It must 
be remembered, however, that no one ever said that the 
development of automated collection control tools would 
be either easy or inexpensive. Rather, the issue is 
one of trade-offs, since the price to be paid for not 
having such tools appears to be even higher. 

Many of the automation projects currently planned 
or under development, for example, the automated 
circulation control and the serial check-in systems, 
will move the Library toward the goal of physical 
inventory control. However, they must be able to 
communicate with existing systems such as LOCIS, for 
bibliographic searching, and the Book Paging System, 
for actual retrieval of material from collection 
storage. Differences between such systems as to 
purpose, data structure, and programming language 
eccentricities must be reconciled or at least 
accommodated. Moreover, the Library must be willing to 
address the procedural and policy issues that may arise 
during the process of reconciling technical 
differences. Such issues might include the arrangement 
of material in collection storage (classified vs. 
accession number order), the appropriateness of reader 
access to stack areas, and the responsibilities of 
custodial divisions in the reporting of holdings and 
location activities related to material in their 
collections. 

Real ism 

If efforts to develop effective tools for automated 
LC collection control are to be successful, one final 
point must be kept in mind. All the parties involved, 
end users and system developers alike, must be 
realistic in their expectations, not only of the 
activities to be supported by developed applications, 
but also of their own role in the development process. 
User organizations must be willing to make staff 
available for the stating of system requirements and 
the review of development results. Moreover, they must 
be ready to act as their own advocates when it comes 
to the allocation of automation resources, both within 
their own departments and when dealing with automation 
suppliers. Further, they must understand that the 
needs of the Library as a whole may not always coincide 
with perceived division or department needs. This is 
not to say that the suppliers of automation services 
are "off the hook." In fact, organizations such as ASO 
must continue to strive for greater understanding of 
the needs and pressures that confront their users, as 
well as to make a concerted effort to develop needed 
automation tools in a timely manner. However, both 
parties must be aware that development of automated 
systems, particularly the kind of integrated system 
that will be needed to provide meaningful LC collection 
control, is a matter of shared responsibility. 

Virginia Vitucci 
Automated Systems Office 


20 




COLLECTIONS CONTROL AND DELIVERY 


AUTOMATED BOOK PAGING 

The objective of the automated Book Paging System 
(BPS) is to provide a timely and reliable method by 
which staff members in the three Library buildings on 
Capitol Hill and at the Landover Center Annex may 
request that books in the Library's collections be sent 
to them for their work. Requests are entered on LC 
terminals and are are routed automatically to the 
collection storage areas, i.e. the book stacks, and 
messages related to the status of the requests and the 
books themselves are sent to the requestor. There are 
three types of BPS users: those who request books, 
collection attendants who locate and retrieve books, 
and Circulation Section employees who check the Loan 
Division's records when a requested item is not on the 
shelf. 

In the stacks, requests are printed out and the 
item is searched by a collection attendant. If the 
item is located, the user receives a message stating 
that the book has been located and is in transit via 
the Automated Book Conveyor System. When the item is 
not on the shelf, a message is sent automatically to 
the Circulation Section of the Loan Division, where the 
Central Charge File is checked for a record of the 
book. The response from the Loan Division is returned 
to the requestor via BPS. 

BPS' Development 

BPS has been in production and simultaneous use 
since 1980. Since the initial version of book paging 
was designed as an alternative to the pneumatic tube 
message system, the development of it has been 
incremental rather than in broad strokes. Several more 
enhancements that are planned for the present system, 
most of which are designed to reduce the amount of 
manual effort required to transmit a request to the 
stacks. 

The next incarnation will be known via the FETCH 
command. In this release, users will not be aware of a 
separate Book Paging System. Once a user, through 
SCORPIO or MUMS, has identified the items to be 
requested, a function key will be pressed to 
automatically generate paging requests. Presently, 
users need to search SCORPIO or MUMS to locate the 
correct bibliographic citations, sign off, sign on to 
BPS and re-key t»he request information. With FETCH, 
the paging function will be simply another feature of 
the bibliographic systems. 

Connections 


Book paging has a strong relationship with the 
Circulation Control Facility and the Automated Book 
Conveyor System. Since BPS is used to request the 
delivery of items in the collections, a completed book 
paging request results in a change of location for the 
physical item. Clearly, there is a need to communicate 
this information to the soon-to-be-completed 
Circulation Control Facility (Loan Division), which 
will control the assignment, charging, and discharging 
of items in the general collections, as well as to the 
Automated Book Conveyor System (ABCS). These delivery 
and control systems will be under the umbrella of a 
master tracking facility, the Collection Control 
Center, which ultimately will monitor the status of 
every item in the collections. 

The functional elements of collection 
control—requesting delivery and physical 


transportation--are related so closely that many users 
do not realize that the Book Paging and Automated Book 
Conveyor systems are not the same facility. In fact, 
BPS and ABCS run on separate computers that presently 
do not communicate, although the planners of 
circulation and control want to develop links between 
them. 

Fea tures 

The system has three features to ensure that a 
request will not get lost. The first causes unanswered 
requests to be printed out repeatedly in the stacks. 
The collection attendant must send a response to the 
requestor stating that the item has been sent or that 
the request cannot be satisfied for specified reasons, 
and the response must be sent in an amount of time 
allocated by the Collections Management Division or the 
original request will be regenerated every few minutes 
like the baby Bacchus. 

The second feature alerts Collections Management to 
equipment problems. In the case of a printer breakdown, 
a message is printed at the Collections Management 
Control Center, ensuring that requests will not be 
lost due to an inoperative printer. If a BPS printer 
in any of the offices fails because of loss of power or 
because the printer is out of paper, an error message 
prints in the Collections Control Center of Collections 
Management. The printer that receives the message is 
called the Master Printer, and if it fails, the message 
will be printed on the Grand Master printer, which also 
is located in the Collections Control Center. Once a 
requestor sends for a book via Book Paging, the system 
controls the routing of the messages related to the 
request. In addition to error messages, the system also 
monitors the status of the printers. 

Finally, there is a chance that the error message 
from a printer or terminal may not be received by the 
system because of hardware or communications problems. 
In this event another monitoring function, called the 
Print Monitor, is used to discover and report 
problems. It is triggered by the amount of time taken 
by a printer to report that it has received a message. 
Presently, the Print Monitor is not ready for use. 

Using BPS 

BPS users enter requests for Library items on 
terminals at workstations. The workstation is linked 
to the book conveyor station to which the requested 
items will be sent. Each workstation is given an ID 
which is the same as that of the Automated Book 
Conveyor System delivery point. Since the workstations 
in Book Paging and ABCS have the same ID numbers, the 
user only needs to use one ID code for requesting 
books. The relationship between the systems is 
reinforced by the use of the workstation ID. A BPS 
user in the Madison Building may enter "A20" as the 
destination for all of his/her requested materials. 
"A20", refers to a book conveyor station, where the 
books are sent. 

Except for an initial security sign-on screen, BPS 
users use a single display for entering requests--the 
call number request display. The request screen 
requires an identification number for the transmitter, 
a call number for each item requested, and a 
destination for the requested book. The SEND TO 
destination code and classification number are also 
checked by the computer for validity, but the Cutter 


21 









COLLECTIONS CONTROL AND DELIVERY 


number is not presently checked. If the BPS user makes 
an error in entering any of the required fields, the 
system will highlight the offending fields of the call 
number request display. The user can resubmit the 
request by correcting the highlighted entries. 


What BPS Retrieves 


The most frequent errors detected on the call 
number request display are those in which the 
classification number is not valid because the user is 
attempting to request items that are not in the general 
collections or the classification number is incorrect. 
The Collections Management Division, which administers 
the Book Paging System, services requests for items in 
the general collections only, and not law, geography, 
or music. Also, one cannot request rare books, current 
periodicals, microforms, and film. (The precise 
definition of the collections controlled by the 
Collections Management Division is given in Library of 
Congress Regulation 214.9 section 2. 3.) There are 
some non-c 1 as s i f ied collections serviced by CMD that 
can be requested through book paging, including: 
Priority 4, "X" collection, Minimum Level Cataloging, 
City, Telephone or Social Directories, and materials 
stored at the Landover Center Annex. 


Once a request has been entered by the BPS user, it 
is transmitted instantly to the appropriate stack 
location where the item is printed out and searched by 
the collection attendant. The attendant takes the 
printed request to the stacks and retrieves the 
material or notes a response on the request slip. The 
attendant then enters a reply, using the Collection 
Attendant Search Reply display, a part of the STAK 
function. Every request must be entered on the Search 
Reply display, including the transaction number of the 
request, the collection attendant ID, and the number of 
pieces sent. There is an optional free text field 
which the collection attendant may use to send an 
expanded message. The attendant uses function keys to 
send the most frequently-used replys. By pressing a 
single function key, the attendant sends a message 
stating: 


FOUND: The requested item has been located and is 
in transit. 

NOS:The item is not on the shelf—Loan records 
being checked. 

VOL: Specific volume information needed to locate 
item. 

CALL: Call number appears to be inaccurate. 

The mosL frequently used keys are FOUND and NOS. FOUND 
transactions print at the requestor's printer and 
terminate; NOS transactions print in the Loan Division, 
where they are searched in the loan charge records. 


The Circulation Section staff in the Loan Division 
use the LNOS function of Book Paging to respond to a 
NOS request. Their Loan Operator display is similar to 
the STAK display, in that it requires transaction and 
Loan Operator ID numbers, and it accepts function keys 
for frequently-used replies. The response from the 
Loan Division is sent to the requestor via the 
requestor's printer. 

The system administrators in the Collections 
Control Center have access to .special functions of 
Book Paging. Certain Control Center staff are 
designated as "key operators" for Book Paging and can 


adjust system operating parameters, such as the amount 
of time allocated for the collection attendant to 
respond before a request is reprinted. The Key Operator 
adds new users, terminals, printers and workstations. 
As the collections are shifted, the key operator 
changes the association of call numbers and stack 
locations. 

The Control Center also collects a variety of 
statistics on the use of Book Paging. BPS users in CMD 
and in the Law Library wrote their own Statistical 
Analysis System (SAS), which reads the various types of 
BPS data and produces reports that provide complete 
descriptive statistics. Each participating 
organizational unit has designated key trainers, who 
will instruct new users. As new units join Book Paging, 
the Collections Management Division will provide 
documentation and training for the key trainer of the 
new unit. 

Maurice Sanders 

Office of the Assistant Librarian for Research Services 


THE AUTOMATED CHARGE FILE 

The Library of Congress' Loan Division, like most 
libraries, checks out material by creating a charge 
record each time a book circulates. But, unlike most 
libraries, LC has seventeen patron groups to which we 
circulate approximately 150,000 items annually, as well 
as numerous inside charges not included in this count. 
Since it is not unusual for some of our larger, more 
active patron groups, e.g., government agencies, to 
have over 500 items checked out at once, needless to 
say, we have been interested in automating our 
circulation operations. 

History 

The Loan Division's history is filled with valiant 
efforts to automate circulation operations. In the 
1960's all circulation to government libraries was 
transferred to an IBM key punch machine. Cards were 
punched at the. point of check out and processed 
overnight in batch mode. The next day, we received a 
print out of current charges. We still, however, were 
recreating a charge record each time an item circulated 
and this system could not accommodate all patron 
categories. 


In the 1970's the Division worked with the Auto¬ 
mated Systems Office (ASO) to develop an in-house 
system to accommodate all of our patron groups. The 
system was dubbed LACS (an omen) and stood for Loan 
Automated Circulation System; it was lacking indeed and 
was aborted before it ever became operational 


22 









COLLECTIONS CONTROL AND DELIVERY 


New studies were undertaken to see what systems 
were available commercially and if our needs could be 
accommodated by them. Nothing existed that was capable 
of handing the vastness of the Library's collections, 
our varied users and the numerous and complicated 
policies and practices governing circulation 
operations. Thus, with ASO, the Loan Division set out 
to develop the ultimate in-house automated circulation 
system. In the meantime, so that management and staff 
could have exposure to some kind of an automated 
circulation system to better formulate their 
requirements, OCLC's Local Systems or LS/2000 (formerly 
Avatar's Integrated Library System or ILS) was 
acquired. 

In-House System Chosen 

The in-house system, which is being developed now 
has several advantages over LS/2000 as it is being 
custom designed to fit the intricate needs of our 
operations. It will accommodate our seventeen patron 
categories: Congressional Member, Congressional staff, 
cultural institution, diplomatic, exhibits, Federal 
agencies, former LC staff, former Member of Congress, 
interlibrary Loan, LC staff and work units, media, 
statutory officials, study facilities users, temporary, 
and writers; and system parameters will be set to 
monitor the specific guidelines or limitations 
associated with each category. 

The new circulation system, called the Circulation 
Control Facility will coLlect alL information necessary 
for our circulation operation, including account name 
and category, address, telephone number, and for some 
accounts, name of authorized representatives. Terminal 
operators will have the ability to create, edit and 
delete patron information online. The system also will 
monitor the loan starting and expiration dates, 
restrictions, overdues, recalls, holds, method of 
dispatch, and loan period and limit. 

With LS/2000, we have had to re-catalog each item 
to create our circulation database. With the in-house 
system, if the item has a Library of Congress card 
number, we will retrieve the MARC record and transfer 
the necessary bibliographic elements from it to a 
pre-formatted input screen and trigger creation of a 
machine-readable copy specific bibliographic record in 
the circulation database. If the LC card number search 
is unsuccessful, the terminal operator will generate at 
least a minimal level citation. Once the loan charge 
record has been created, the system will generate a 
book pass which will serve as proof that the item has 
been properly charged and allow the item to be taken 
off Library of Congress premises. 

Discharging loan transactions will be supported 
online. At return, the data link between the patron 
and item will be dissolved, and the item will be 
available immediately for subsequent loan. The system 
also will notify the terminal operator of any 
outstanding hold requests for an item at discharge and 
when appropriate, print a return receipt for each 
discharge. 

Because most patrons check-out and return more than 
one item at a time, the system will provide for the 
"stacking" of charge and discharge transactions. The 
terminal operator also may initiate recalls and 
renewals by changing the status of an item on loan. The 
change to overdue status will be automatically 


accomplished by the Circulation Control Facility. 
Overdue notices, recall notices and lost notices will 
be generated overnight or on a pre-determined schedule. 

Most of these functions will be used in the Loan 
Division's Circulation Section. The system, however, 
is being designed to accommodate not only circulation 
operations, but also to automate some of the manual 
operations in the Interlibrary Loan and Congressional 
Loan Sections. Finally, system access security will be 
on two levels, terminal and password authorization. 

All major features are scheduled for the first 
release of the system software. Subsequent releases 
(on no set time table) will include an interface with 
the Library of Congress Book Paging System (BPS), which 
would check circulation records before attempting to 
page a book from the stacks; an interface with the 
Library of Congress Information System (LOCIS), which 
would allow readers to search for items in the 
computerized catalog, check circulation records and 
page a book in one action; an interface with the 
On-line Technical Processing System (TPS) which would 
provide information about items on order or being 
cataloged by the Processing Services Department; 
interface with the Library of Congress 
Administrative/Personnel Information System which would 
establish patron authority by allowing access to the 
latest listing of LC staff and their addresses; and, an 
interface with the Copyright Office Publication and 
Interactive Cataloging System (COPICS), which will 
provide information on material being cataloged in the 
Copyright Office. 

The date of the first release has been rescheduled 
many times—will the current date of spring, 1986 hold? 
We hope so! 

Cassandra R. Allen 
Loan Division 


TRAVELIN' BOOKS 

Installed in the late 1970's, Lhe Automated Book 
Conveyor System (ABCS) transports books and other 
Library materials between 53 stations in the Jefferson, 
Adams, and Madison buildings. The conceptual design and 
planning for this system took more than a decade and 
was related integrally to the planning and design of 
the James Madison Memorial Building. 

Prior to the opening of the Madison, a pneumatic 
tube system was used to transport books between the 
Jefferson and Adams buildings. This high-speed system 
connected the Main Control Room on the ground floor of 
the Jefferson Building with the Adams Building control 
room on Deck 12 and transported material between the 
two points in about 35 seconds. While having the 
distinct advantages of speed and dependability (the 
system rarely broke down, and since there were only two 
openings, misrouting was impossible), the system had 


23 






COLLECTIONS CONTROL AND DELIVERY 


two distinct disadvantages: high speed, coupled with 
rapid acceleration and deceleration presented serious 
preservation problems by damaging bindings and further 
deteriorating already brittle material, and the system 
was limited in its use to transporting material between 
two buildings. To address the requirements both for 
preservation and for linking all three buildings, the 
present automated book conveyor was designed and 
installed. 


ABCS incorporates five main vertical conveyor 
units, one in each color-coded quadrant of the Madison 
Building with an opening on each floor and a fifth 
unit in the Adams Building with openings on each deck 
level (1-12) and one in the Science Reading Room. In 
addition, there are other isolated stations, several in 
the Madison Building and one in the Main Control Room 
of the Jefferson Building (the only station located 
there). 


Operation 


The employee places the books in the box, inserts 
the box into the opening at the conveyor station, and 
inputs the station number of the final destination. 
The box then moves through the system to its 
destination. Each box has a computer-readable code 
plate on the side, making each one unique and capable 
of being tracked and routed through the system. 

The automated control for ABCS is provided by dual 
Dec PDP 11/34 computers, each with a capacity of 80k 
words of core memory. The computer functions as 
overall system controller and activity monitor. 
Although the Automated Book Conveyor System actually is 
operated by the Architect of the Capitol, a video 
display terminal and a printer have been installed in 
the Collections Control Center (Jefferson Building), 
which provide full-time monitoring of ABCS and the 
Automated Book Paging System. The key operators in the 
Collections Control Center use the terminal and printer 
to monitor the status of the system, performing such 
operations as locating boxes within the system, noting 
that a box is full, that a station has exceeded its 
limit on the number of boxes programmed for it, and 
seeing when a-part of the system (a conveyor, a code 
reader, etc.) is out-of-service. In consultation with 
the engineers in the Office of the Architect of the 
Capitol, the key operators in the Collections Control 
Center use their terminal to put these devices back 
into service. In addition, the Center serves as the 
primary contact for users of the Automated Book 
Conveyor System and as a liaison with the Architect of 
the Capitol. 


Now, with all this sophistication you might want to 
know how long it takes now for a book to reach its 
destination: twelve minutes from Adams to the Jefferson 
and 24 minutes from Adams to the Information Office in 
the Madison Building, green core. But...it arrives 
safely. 


Steven J. Herman 
Diane Nester 
Anthony Padua 

Collections Management Division 







REFERENCE SERVICES 


LOCIS AND THE ENCYCLOPEDIA PLAN 

The encyclopedia plan aims to create specialized 
reading rooms, e.g., Social Sciences, Humanities, 
Performing Arts, and to tie the areas together with a 
strong central index (the Main Reading Room) to 
counterbalance the centrifugal tendencies. The index 
is crucial to the success of the overall plan. 

I propose that the success of the central index 
depends on: cleaning up the PreMARC database, saving 
the frozen pre-'81 card catalog unLil such time as the 
PreMARC database functions well, getting more 
bibliographies into the Main Reading Rooma (a topic I 
will not discuss here), and making it easy for people 
to perceive LOCIS within a larger context of several 
other equally important avenues of access. 

In pursuing these goals there are two basic tenets 
of library science that need to be kept in mind. The 
first is the principle of uniform heading which holds 
that a cataloging system should group together under 
one subject heading the variety of works whose titles 
may express a particular idea in many different 
phrasings and synonyms and whose filing is otherwise 
scattered throughout the alphabet (1) ; and that the 
same uniform heading, with appropriate subdivisions, 
e.g., "--History," "--Bibliography," should group 
together in one place the many different aspects of a 
subject, e.g., historical, social, legal, educational, 
fictional, technical, or bibliographical, whose 
coverage is scattered throughout the class ificat ion 
scheme. Further, there should be multiple 
cross-references so that users can find the appropriate 
uniform heading in the first place. 

The second tenet is the principle of least effort, 
which holds that if we set up systems which make it 
easy to accomplish efficient retrieval, then more 
people will succeed in accomplishing it. (2) 
Conversely, if we set up systems that make it difficult 
to accomplish efficient retrieval, i.e., that add extra 
steps, require more prior knowledge, have more 
exceptions, or scatter rather than link or group 
resources, then, inevitably, fewer people will succeed. 
Nor can we blame readers for laziness, as if they are 
at fault, if they fail to run a longer or more 
difficult obstacle course; for, if the overall system 
is difficult to use then it is the planners of the 
system, and not its users, who are responsible for its 
resultant performance. We need to consider LOCIS and 
the encyclopedia plan within this context. 


Cleaning Up PreMARC 


There has been progress in planning, specifically 
as reflected in the Report of the PreMarc Database 
Planning Group (11/84) and the Research Services Ad Hoc 
Group on Premarc's 1985 study, Enhancing PreMARC . Two 
points are not addressed in these reports: 

1) Given that the database consists of five million 
records—reflecting the work of hundreds of catalogers 
over eight decades—it is inadvisable to make plans on 
the assumption that the database can be cleaned up in 
only a few years. Since the outlook for staffing 
increases at LC is not good, more likely the editing 
will take decades. And, in the meantime, access which 
we offer to our incomparable collection of older 
materials must not be any less than it is now. 


2) In cleaning up the database, particular attention 
should be paid to updating obsolete subject headings to 
current terms. The plans that have been advanced so 
far concentrate on only two of the three problems of 
the records: the need to key in missing fields, e.g., 
subtitles, contents notes, series statements, and to 
correct miskeyings, i.e., word misspellings and field 
mistaggings. Both need to be done, but such measures 
leave untouched the problem of split files being 
created between old and new headings, a violation of 
the principle of uniform heading. For example, it is 
desirable to correct the multiple forms of the old 
heading "Oswiecim (Concentration Camp)," which are now 
scattered under four misspellings of "Oswiecim," two of 
"Concentration," and one of "Camp." But, even better 
would be to change the old heading to the current one 
("Auschwitz"), so that the 144 records under it will be 
found where Holocaust scholars are likely to look for 
them. (The change was made long ago in the card 
catalog.) 

The existence of a good cross-reference structure 
has a material bearing on whether or not scholars will 
find a given term in the first place, and plans are 
well under way to put the LCSH headings and 
cross-references online. The problem for PreMARC 
records is that the current network of terras does not 
adequately pick up references to and from terms that 
are obsolete. 


Rather than create a greatly extended, complicated, 
and unwieldy cross-reference structure that would 
absorb these "orphans," a better solution would be to 
update the old terms so that they fit into the current 
network. This, however, needs to be done in a 
systematic fashion, not simply on an "as reported" 
basis; the latter hit or miss approach will offer at 
best a partial solution and will greatly extend the 
period during which PreMARC must be considered a backup 
avenue of access rather than our primary source. 

The proposed retrospective conversion or RECON 
project, in which LC would cooperatively use records 
created by other libraries to upgrade our own files, 
offers another useful but still partial solution. It 
may well take as much time and effort to clean up other 
libraries' subject authority work as it would simply to 
attack PreMARC directly; and, in any event, we need to 
be mindful of one of the surprising and hard-won 
lessons of the compilation of the Pre~ ' 56 NUC , that it 
would take hundreds of cooperating libraries and not 
just a handful of large libraries to provide a database 
large enough to be of much use to LC's retrospective 
conversion. (3) 


If we are going to address updating subject 
headings, and not merely rest content with adding 
missing fields and correcting miskeyings or obsolete 
terms, then we have to recognize the time problem. It 
will take longer to clean up PreMARC if we deal with 
the subject headings than if we ignore them. It will 
take longer still if we rely on the more "hit or miss" 
methods of correcting headings "as reported" or via 
RECON. In any event, the time problem for a clean-up 
is likely to be one of decades. We need to assure that 
alternative avenues of access that are at least 
comparable to what we have now are retained during this 
long interim. 


The questions that have come up concerning the 


25 









REFERENCE SERVICES 


retention of the card catalog have been two: "Even 
through Pr eMARC records are t runeated , don't the new 
software capabilities which allow key word, call 
number, and Boolean combination searches compensate 
adequately for what is lost?"; and "Why wouldn't the 
K.G. Saur microfiche be adequate as an interim 
replacement?" Both questions are important. 

The component word search capability of PreMARC will 
not save present levels of subject access because 
millions of key words from subtitles, contents notes, 
and series statements were never entered into the 
database in the first place, and one cannot search for 
or combine words that do not exist in the file. 
Moreover, the key word searches on terms that are 
likely to occur to readers, e.g., "Auschwitz," 
"Airplanes," do not appear on most of the older records 
with obsolete headings ("Oswiecim," "Aeroplanes"), and 
thus the older records will not be retrieved. 
Therefore* scholars are likely to be misled into 
thinking they have done, better searches than they 
really have. (Among the subjects for which PreMARC 
hides hundreds or thousands of records under 
practically unfindable terms are the Holocaust, World 
War II, the Civil War, genealogy, and women's history; 
in each of these areas we serve vocal constituencies.) 

Searches by call number (either in PreMARC or 
shelflist microfiche) will not recreate the destroyed 
uniform heading subject groups, because call numbers 
scatter many aspects of a subject (historical, social, 
legal, educational, fictional, technical, 
bibliographical); many classes for subjects, like LC 
subject headings, have changed over Lime, and searching 
by current numbers will miss retrospective materials; 
the basic accuracy of class numbers cannot be trusted 
in PreMARC—we must recall that the people who keyed 
them in are the same people who keyed in 22 different 
spellings of "United States"; and, the technique of 
searching by call number in LOCIS or fiche is one with 
which people are simply not familiar. 

The MCat Mlerofiche 

If the complex software features of PreMARC at 
present cannot preserve current levels of subject 
access, primarily because of the contents of the file, 
then, we need to consider next whether the K.G. Saur 
microfiche will be adequate for the task. The 
professional reference staff of GRR strongly believes 
that the microfiche will not be adequate for the 
purpose of retaining the minimum current level of 
access necessary for the success of the central index 
of the encyclopedia plan. 

The first problem is that preserving the co nten ts of 
the card catalog on microfiche does not preserve the 
same acce ss to the contents. The next problem is that 
up to now we have been planning as though PreMARC can 
serve as the primary avenue of access in the next few 
decades, and as though the Saur fiche can serve as a 
backup. But since PreMARC itself, until it is cleaned 
up, cannot be more than a backup, this thrusts upon 
the fiche the role of primary avenue of access to our 
huge retrospective collections, a feature role for 
which it was never designed. Its problems are: 1) 
roll-fiche does not allow random access; 2) it erases 
the color-coded distinction between subjects and titles 
that appears in the card catalog, and, in effect, 
requires all users to have an expert's prior knowledge 
of LC's complicated filing rules; 3) it lacks some 
cross-references which Saur has skipped in the filming 
process; and 4) it requires both horizontal and 


vertical scanning of records, which is not unlike 
forcing a user to read a newspaper by looking through a 
cardboard tube that prevents him or her from seeing the 
full page. Such reading can be done, but if there is a 
more attractive alternative—such as a 
"state-of-the-art" computer that will provide a 
printout of "everything"— then the principle of least 
effort will assure that most users will flock to the 
attractive system and disregard the more difficult one. 
In other words, we will have created an overall system 
which makes it very attractive and easy to get bad 
results and quite difficult to get good results. We 
will have made quality research something that can be 
done only by going against the grain of the overall 
system. 

Making I t Easier 

If the central index is to live up to its potential 
for tying together the universe of knowledge, 
considerable concrete, systematic, and formal planning 
is needed to bring to researchers' attention to the 
whole range of access systems we have which supplement 
LOCIS. In addition to LOCIS's post-coordinate search 
capability and our unparalleled collection of 
bibliographies, we also have a collection of indexes 
which, in aggregate, provide quite different subject 
access through pre-coordinated controlled vocabulary 
headings to journal articles and other sources in any 
subject field. We have another collection of indexes 
which, in aggregate, provides quite different retrieval 
results—again, in any subject field—through 
"uncoordinated" key word indexing of journal articles 
and other records. We have a third collection that 
provides still different subject access in any 
discipline through citation indexing. (The latter 
enables a researcher to find out if any given source 
has been cited in the footnote of a subsequent journal 
article.) And, we have yet another set of sources 
which provides access via the National Referral Center 
database to people contacts and experts in all fields. 
All of these systems are potentially of equal 
importance with LOCIS in revealing knowledge records 
because each of them can to something important that 
LOCIS cannot; some of them are even preferable for 
establishing cross-disciplinary connections. 

If we create a central index in which the computer 
is properly balanced by these several other systems and 
in which we make it easy for people to perceive LOCIS 
within a larger context, the potential of the 
encyclopedia plan will be realized. Indeed, with an 
arrangement like this, LC could finally become a model 
for other libraries in reference service, just as we 
already are in cataloging, automation, and 
preservation. Without such an index, or with an index 
weighted primarily towards PreMARC and microfiche for 
access to the wealth of our retrospective material, we 
will have violated important principles and greatly 
compounded, rather than solved the problem of 
scattering and fragmentation in the universe of 
knowledge. (4) The new technologies are not ends in 
themselves, but they must be planned for within a 
larger context, and their use must be governed by the 
principles of our profession. 

Thomas Mann 

General Reading Rooms Division 

1. See, for example, Lois Mai Chan's Library of 
Congress Sub j ect He adings: Principle s an d Applica tion 
(Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1978), Chapter 


26 




REFERENCE SERyiCES 


2, "Basic Principles," pp. 24-25. The principle 
discussed here as applied to subject headings has close 
analogies for uniform titles and name authorities. 

2. See Don R. Swanson, "On Improving Communication 
Among Scientists," Bulletin of th e Atomic Scientists , 
February 1966, p. 9 for a "principle of least action" 
which states, "The design of any future information 
service should be predicated on the assumption that its 


customers will exert minimal effort in order to receive 
its benefits. Furthermore, they won't bother at all if 
the necessary minimum is higher than some fairly low 
threshold." See also Victor Rosenberg, "Factors 
Affecting the Preference of Industrial Personnel for 
Information Gathering Methods," Information Storage 
and Retrieval 3, (July 1967), pp. 119-127, a 
statistical study which concludes that "the ease of use 
of an information gathering method is more important 
than the amount of information expected for information 
gathering methods ...regardless of the research 
orientation of the users" and that "the basic parameter 
for the design of any industrial information system 
should be the system's ease of use, rather than the 
amount of information provided, and that if an 
organization desires to have a high quality of 
information used, it must make ease of access of 
primary importance." See also, Pauline Atherton, 
Putting Know ledge_ to Work: An American View of 
Ranganathan's Five Laws of L i brary Science (Delhi: 
Vikas, 1973), pp. 122-123 for a "principle of least 
action"; George H. Haines, "Process Models of Consumer 
Decision Making" in Buyer/Consumer Information 
Processing (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina 
Press, 1974), pp. 96-97 for a "principle of 
information-processing parsimony"; and James R. Dwyer, 
"Public Response to an Academic Library Microcatalog" 
in The Card Catalog: Current Issues (Metuchen, N.J.: 
Scarecrow, 1981), pp. 164-170. It is not without 
interest that a "principle of least action" is also a 
basic tenet of mechanics and physics; cf. H.W. 
Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians , 4th ed. (New York: 
New York University Press, 1961), pp. 50, 84, 111, and 
118, and The Conservation of Energy and the Principle 
of Least Action , edited by Bernard Cohen (New York: 
Arno Press, 1981). 

3. See Gordon R. Williams, "The National Union 
Catalog and Research Libraries" in In Celebration: 
The National Union Catalog, Pre-1956 Imprints 
(Washington: Library of Congress, 1981), p. 14. 

4. A few years ago the editors of the Ency c lopedia 
Britannica changed its structure to provide different 
levels of access through an introductory "Micropaedia" 
and an in-depth "Macropaedia." Subsequent reviews 
roundly blasted the set because it lacked a 
comprehensive index to both parts that would tie them 
together. Now, in 1985--in response to very strong 
criticism from librarians—the company has finally 
produced a separate two-volume index which establishes 
the necessary links. 


SUBJECT ACCESS IN THE LOCIS ENVIRONMENT 

Although many library patrons already know exactly 
which books they want, most of the public and 
Congressional reference staff at the Library of 
Congress would probably agree that the majority of 
inquiries are posed in terms of looking for materials 
on a particular subject. Thus, providing "subject 
access" to the Library's collections is fundamental to 
the information needs of the general public, students, 
scholars, Congressional users, and LC's own staff. In 
addition to the traditional means of subject 
searching—card catalogs and printed indexes and 
bibliographies—we now have to consult the computerized 
files which constitute the Library of Congress 
Information System (LOCIS). With the closing of the 
card catalog, LOCIS has become the only source of a 
growing segment of our cataloging data and its use 
obligatory for almost all staff and readers. 
Understanding how it helps and hinders subject access 
is basic to providing effective library and information 
services. 

Subject access is not a new concern in library 
literature. Well before the advent of computerized 
systems, librarians were examining the effect of 
indexing vocabularies, catalog arrangement, and 
information-seeking behavior on the success of subject 
searches. The development of online public-access 
catalogs has brought all of these factors together in 
the attempt to design systems with maximum capabilities 
and minimum user difficulty. A significant body of 
data on subject access has emerged from catalog use 
studies and is the focus of several researchers. (1) A 
fairly comprehensive definition of subject access was 
quoted recently by Pauline Cochrane, one of the major 
authorities in this field: "The approach may be 
systematic (as in the classified arrangement of books 
on a library shelf) or topica l (as in the subject 
headings in the catalog) or the approach may be 
natur al or free (as in the title words or words in an 
abstract or subject description if they are used for 
matching query words)." (2) 

Surveys of the use of LOCIS have repeatedly shown 
the high proportion of subject searches performed by 
all types of catalog users, and the above-average use 
of catalogs at LC in general. (3) In fact, general 
research indicates that even many author or title 
searches actually may be "disguised" subject searches. 
(4) LC readers may search by subject to a greater 
extent than average both because our closed stack 
system permits less browsing, a typical means of 
finding out what there is on a certain topic, and 
because the vastness of our collections leads even 
knowledgeable researchers to want to just "see what 
there is" in our files. In the context of the 
literature noted above, there seem to be several 
questions to be answered about the impact of LOCIS on 
subject searching. First, how does LOCIS provide 
subject access, and how is it integrated into reference 
services? Second, what are the obstacles to subject 
access in the LOCIS environment? Third, how well is 
LOCIS actually working, and what more could it be 
doing? Fourth and last, what are the future prospects 
for subject access, both in LOCIS and in system 
developments outside the Library of Congress? 

Features of LOCIS 


27 


In answering these questions, this paper focuses 
primarily on the bibliographic files within LOCIS. 
LOCIS comprises two retrieval systems, SCORPIO and 























REFERENCE SERVICES 


MUMS, which at this point include cataloging data for 
books, serials, maps, and music, and 
separately-accessed name authority and union catalog 
records. Each category of records dates from a 
particular year when input began. SCORPIO also 
includes specialized non-bibliographic data bases for 
legislative and directory information which will only 
be briefly noted here, operating more as individual 
reference tools than as integral components of a 
subject catalog of the Library's resources. 

Benefiting from the dual evolution of SCORPIO and 
MUMS, LOCIS provides four distinct means of subject 
access through keyword commands and browsable indexes. 
The full Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) 
can be browsed in alphabetical order, with or without 
subdivisions, similar to using the card catalog. 
Keywords can be retrieved directly from the LCSH fields 
in the records, without having to browse the heading in 
its exact form. Author, title, series, and notes 
fields can also be searched for subject-related 
keywords. Finally, and again important in a 
closed-stack library, one may browse by classification 
number. Although the complete call number is not 
browsable, this index is more accessible to the public 
than the card shelflist and more readable and 
up-to-date than the microfiche shelflist. 

These access points offer unique advantages over 
the card catalogs. Full Boolean operations (and, or, 
not) may be performed using whole headings, particular 
subdivisions, class numbers, or keywords from any 
combination of fields. Sets in SCORPIO may be limited 
by date, language, class number, fixed field codes such 
as geographic area or intellectual level and other 
factors, while MUMS commands can be restricted to 
searching certain files or fields. The MUMS keyword 
abilities provide powerful retrieval of countless 
combinations of author, title, subject, and other 
keywords in the record, including untraced fields such 
as contents notes, translators, and series. These help 
overcome problems with spelling, multiple headings, and 
complicated form or corporate headings. Proximity 
modifiers are available in MUMS, but are not used as 
much in bibliographic searching as they are in keyword 
searching of text in the SCORPIO legislative files. 
Although commonly assumed that it is difficult to 
retain online the random serendipity of browsing in a 
card catalog, there are some advantages to browsing in 
SCORPIO. For example, one may directly search 
subdivisions of both subject and corporate headings. 
It is even possible that, given the size and filing 
complexity of LC's Main Card Catalog, users are more 
likely to get to the desired heading right away when 
browsing it online. 

LOCIS and the Reference Environment 

Whatever its particular characteristics, LOCIS is 
but a part of the total reference setting and its 
functioning affects other reader services. Not just an 
isolated finding aid, it must be used together with 
card catalogs, printed indexes and bibliographies, and 
is itself a principal means of general bibliographic 
and topical verification. Thus, we need to consider 
the consistency of LOCIS and other reference tools with 
regard to coverage, terminology and structure and how 
these interrelate in providing subject access to 
information. 

The computerized data bases do not constitute a 
comprehensive catalog of the Library's holdings even 
for books, let alone for serials and special 


collections. Where most library users expect to find 
separate card catalogs for different types of 
materials, something about the computer leads people to 
assume that everything is in it and that it is 
universally interconnected with external data services. 
Public service staff must continually remind patrons of 
the exact contents of LOCIS and emphasize the need to 
consult other catalogs, finding aids, or even other 
libraries for a complete search. Confusion is also 
caused by the fact that some SCORPIO files such as the 
legislative bill digests or National Referral Center 
directory have nothing to do with the catalogs or with 
specific LC collections. These files have valuable 
subject content, but may not be consistent with other 
segments of LOCIS in regard to vocabulary, display 
format, or the nature of the actual items reflected. 

Although subject headings in the book files in 
LOCIS are the same as those in the card catalogs and in 
some printed indexes, search techniques obviously 
differ. Further inconsistencies arise with some 
SCORPIO files which use their own thesauri, and in 
switching between LOCIS/LC card catalogs and the 
numerous printed indexes and bibliographies which use 
specialized terminology or forms of keyword access. 
However, the overwhelming problem for both staff and 
the general public is that LOCIS does not operate like 
any other manual or automated system, is not 
se1f-teaching, and requires varying amounts of 
instruction to use effectively. Its retrieval 
potential and relationship to collections and catalogs 
cannot be fully realized until the obstacles to easy 
and direct use are analyzed and overcome. 

Obstacles to Subject Access 

LOCIS is a new machine that uses old stock parts: 
the same bibliographic data that formerly went into the 
card catalog now gets entered into a computer. As a 
result there are two distinct kinds of problems, those 
that were there all along but are now more acutely 
visible, and those that arise explicitly from the 
automated system. Some conceptual problems in 
searching are the same as in the card catalog, but 
become more difficult in LOCIS, as the structure of the 
database forces patrons to confront descriptive and 
subject cataloging rules when they did not expect to, 
or do not know them. 

The traditional means of subject access dates from 
the early part of this century: the Library of Congress 
subject heading scheme (LCSH). Despite many critiques 
from American and European librarians (5), its 
structure has changed little; practices designed Lo 
make searching physically efficient in a card catalog 
have been retained in an automated system which has the 
ability to overcome such physical limitations. To 
choose the best headings, readers may need to 
understand concepts of indexing depth and specificity 
since LC only catalogs for the general subject of the 
entire work and does not assign books to both broad and 
narrow categories. This causes difficulty both in 
topical headings and in geographical ones. LOCIS 
searchers intuitively seek to post-coordinate numerous 
terms, whereas MARC records contain two or three (at 
Jest) pre-coordinated, subdivided, inverted, and 
parenthetically qualified headings. Some headings are 
harder to browse in SCORPIO because the indexing 
program splits up the elements of corporate, analytic, 
and form headings, and doesn't display all the 
subfields in some headings. While proposed 
enhancements may improve the browse index soon, readers 


28 





REFERENCE SERVICES 


currently need to pursue complicated steps to select 
and combine the separate portions of the headings or to 
weed out items lumped together in the index. Presuming 
they realize there's a problem, and ask how to get 
around it! Luckily, the keyword search in MUMS makes 
these headings easier to locate than in either SCORPIO 
or the original card catalog for which they were 
created. Keyword access to titles helps compensate for 
the conservative and slow addition of terms to LCSH, 
but not for recently changed name and subject headings 
where records exist under each version without online 
cross-references. 

Subject access is the same as author/title access 
when it comes to the "mechanical" aspects of using 
LOCIS, that is, one must learn a sequence of 
artificial, non-standardized commands and be able to 
execute them with few prompts or online aids. To fully 
profit from LOCIS, one must actually learn two sets of 
commands, for SCORPIO and MUMS. These are the new 
obstacles which occur only in the context of the 
automated catalog and which necessitate a major 
investment in staff time for training and preparing 
documentation. 

The online book files do not integrate 
cross-references, and distinguishing among author, 
title, and subject entries in the browsable indexes is 
rather subtle; it is all too common to select pages of 
titles when a subject is desired, or never to get to 
the full records at all from the index. The syndetic 
structure of the card catalog is essential when working 
with a system like LCSH. In using LOCIS, staff must 
explain the use of the printed LCSH lists, an extra 
step in subject searching not taken by many patrons on 
the assumption they can go directly into the files and 
find pointers to what they want. Further, not all 
SCORPIO files use the same subject headings, principles 
of geographic subdivision, numbers and specificity of 
headings, and form of corporate entry. However, these 
latter files, mostly nonbib1iographic and designed 
expressly to operate online, contain greater numbers of 
descriptors per item, thus increasing the likelihood of 
successful subject retrieval. 

Keyword searching seems like a panacea, but does create 
its own problems because of non-searchable stopwords, 
"false drops," and huge numbers of items retrieved with 
poorly-worded commands. Spelling, spacing, and 
punctuation are crucial, and when browsing, the exact 
form and order of the headings and subdivisions. Some 
browsing goes very slowly; the whole heading may not be 
displayed, or there may be many, many screens for 
headings with numerous subdivisions. The user may 
repeatedly select, display, and return to the index 
just to scan records under a smattering of headings, 
because unlike browsing in a card catalog, the whole 
entry is not seen as one flips through. 

When browsing or displaying entries in LOCIS, the 
filing order of headings and of the actual records is 
different from the card catalog, and the individual 
display formats vary among the databases. Although the 
filing order in MUMS depends on the command used, all 
subject searches in LOCIS are sorted by card number; 
the chronological arrangement suits some needs but is 
hard to check against alphabetical lists from the card 
catalog or other bibliographies. The brief results of 
keyword LCSH searches do show one subject heading for 
each record retrieved, but since it is not labeled as 
such and is usually the one already specified in the 
initial command, this may not give the user any 
additional searching clues. 


Command Performanc e 

How well is LOCIS working? Both small and large 
scale studies have attempted to answer this question, 
and to elicit ideas for improvement. A 1979 survey of 
123 SCORPIO users found that 76 percent were doing 
subject searches. (6) Even graduate students and 
faculty showed this high percentage of subject 
searching, contrasting with earlier [card] catalog use 
studies. Of those whose most recent search was by 
subject, 73 percent indicated that they browsed 
randomly under some work, 5 percent used LCSH, and 11 
percent said they used LC classification numbers. Since 
call number searching is not common among public users, 
it is likely that some respondents misunderstood the 
question, highlighting further the difficulty of making 
effective subject searches. About half the respondents 
had also used the card catalog, and 62 percent of those 
looked under subject; most users tended to rate SCORPIO 
as easier for all searches, even when the option given 
was not available online, for example, finding 
cross-references. The main impediments cited by users 
were "figuring out what to do when problems occur," and 
the lack of coverage of serials and older materials. 

These findings were confirmed and extended by a 
major study begun in 1981, sponsored by the Council on 
Library Resources (CLR) and carried out in cooperation 
with a group of public and academic libraries across 
the country. The CLR study has generated a substantial 
number of follow-up reports and articles in which the 
issue of subject searching features prominently. (7) 
Across all libraries, 53 percent of online catalog 
users were trying to find books on a topic; 44 percent 
came with a specific subject heading, and 29 percent 
with topic-related words in mind. LC readers are more 
apt to do subject searches than those at other 
libraries surveyed, especially when they are infrequent 
visitors; 69 percent of ail LOCIS users were searching 
by subject, but only 62 percent of those who use LOCIS 
every day versus 75 percent of those for whom it was 
the first search. Of the over 480 users responding at 
LC, 88 percent think the online catalog is better than 
the card catalog and 78 percent have a "very favorable" 
attitude toward the computer. (8) 

One of the most interesting findings of these 
studies was that perceptions of search success were 
strongly related to the types of search, and that 
patrons looking for a topic were noticeably less likely 
to be satisfied with the results. The questionnaire 
asked about such factors as understanding displays, 
using codes and abbreviations, entering commands, 
carrying out subject and known-item searches, and 
system delays; of the thirteen systems in the study 
which supported subject searching, LC ranked very high 
for subject and known-item searching but rather low for 
understanding codes, commands, and displays. 
Nonetheless, systems that actually displayed subject 
headings, like SCORPIO, and those that allowed keyword 
searching, like MUMS, ranked higher overall. (9) 
Specific comments at LC included trouble finding the 
correct subject term and increasing and reducing the 
size of sets. In focus group interviews, users spoke 
often of a need to improve the system's browse mode, 
for example, by putting more information in a browse 
display and by putting in a mechanism for revealing the 
scheme of subject headings. (10) 

These studies have led library researchers and 
system designers to propose a number of features that 
should be present in an online catalog to provide good 
subject access even without changing the content of the 
basic records. These include 1) display of 


29 



REFERENCE SERVICES 


cross-references and automatic linking with 
bibliographic records; 2) a separate search interface 
or index for subjects; 3) kwic/kwoc indexes or rotated 
lists of headings and titles; 4) menus and prompts to 
help choose headings, expand, or contract sets; 5) 
displays which show headings retrieved or "near 
matches" as alternatives; 6) the ability to 
automatically search additional headings and class 
numbers listed in the records retrieved; 7) 
hierarchical searching through a "tree" of headings 
and/or classification numbers. (11) 

The Outlook for LOCIS and Subject Access 

The prospects for improved subject access reflect 
trade-offs related to staff and users, costs and 
effort: more emphasis at the input stage (indexing 
techniques, system design) may make searching and 
training easier, but will cost more and take more time. 

At LC, the programming and cataloging needs of general 
public services, special collections, technical 
services, Congressional research, library 
administration, and copyright registration must be 
juggled into a master list of priorities. Major 
changes in the system or in the content of the MARC 
records are not likely; however, some projects already 
underway will increase the availability and utility of 
existing data and system features. 

An advisory group of reference, processing, and 
automation personnel is working to implement online 
browsing of the LC subject heading list, complete with 
cross-references. The LCSH would still be in a 
separate database not automatically linking with 
bibliographic records and requiring more staff 
explanations, but represents a necessary step toward a 
self-sufficient online catalog. In 1986, a series of 
enhancements to the SCORPIO indexes (ASO Task 277 as 
amended) should expand the amount of information 
indexed and displayed by the browse screens, including 
further portions of author names, subject subdivisions, 
and complex corporate and form headings. Lastly, a 
facility for writing specialized tutorials and 
documentation is in use within individual departments 
to assist both staff and readers, and may serve as a 
"front-end" processor for new or infrequent users. 

Looking beyond the Library of Congress, researchers 
propose enriching bibliographic records with abstracts, 
additional headings, and terms from the table of 
contents, and index of a book. (12) Systems analysts 
are not only suggesting subject search and display 
features such as those listed above, but sophisticated 
front-end query systems which use advances in 
artificial intelligence programs to more automatically 
translate from user to system language and which 
integrate numerous online aids. And, we all want to 
achieve what so many library patrons have taken for 
granted with card catalogs: standardization of search 
commands across online systems. 

LOCIS is a powerful tool for subject access, but it 
will always be only one of those needed by LC readers. 
In an environment responding to a heavy load of subject 
requests, there are still serious obstacles to 
effective subject searching which mandate continued 
work on better systems, records, training, and service. 


Sarah Pritchard 

General Reading Rooms Division 


1. See for example K. Markey, Subject Searching in 
Library Catalogs (OCLC, 1984); P .Cochrane, f, Modern 
Subject Access in the Online Age," 6 pts. in Am. Libs. , 
Feb.-July 1984; C. Mandel, "Online Subject Access," JAL 
9 (July 1983); J. Matthews et al., Using Online 
Catalogs (Neal-Schuman, 1983); LRTS Jan.-Mar. 1985, 
whole issue; and N. Williamson, "Subject Access in the 
On-Line Environment," Adv. in Librarlanship , v. 11 
(1985). 

2. Cochrane, "Modern Subject Access," op. cit . : 81. 

3. Pritchard, S. SCORPIO: A Survey of Public Users of 
the Library of Congress System (L.C., 1981; ERIC-ED 
198801): Anderson, R. et al.. Library of Congress 
Online Public Catalog Users Survey (L.C., 1982: ERIC-ED 
231384). 

4. Lipetz, B. "User Requirements in Identifying Desired 
Works in a Large Library." (Yale Univ. Lib., 1970; 
ERIC-ED 042479). 

5. Cochrane, P., and M. Kirtland. "Critical Views of 
LCSH." (ERIC Clearghs. on Info. Resources, 1981; 
IR-53). 

6. Pritchard, op. cit. : 15-18. 

7. For full report see Lawrence, G., and J. Matthews, 
Detailed Analysis of the CLR Online Catalog Project 

(ERIC-ED 242332), revised in Matthews et al., Using 
Online Catalogs . A list of all study documents is in 
Matthews and Lawrence, "Further Analysis of the CLR 
Online Catalog Project," ITAL Dec. 1984. 

8. Anderson, op. cit. : 10-11. 

9. Matthews and Lawrence, "Further Analysis:" 362, 365. 

10. Anderson: 12. 

11. In addition to the above, see R. Aluri, Subject 
Access to Catalog Records in Large Bibliographic 

Databases (PhD. diss., DAI 81-22155); Cochrane, Subject 

Access in the Online C a talog (OCLC, 1982; ERIC-ED 
215686); N. Kaske and N. Sanders, "Online Subject 
Access: The Human Side of the Problem," RQ, Fall 1980: 
52-58. 

12. See Mandel, "Enriching the Library Catalog for 
Subject Access," LRTS , Jan.-Mar. 1985: 5-15. 


CATALOG CONUNDRUMS: A USER'S VIEW 

In "American Notes" in the April 12, 1985 issue of 
The Times Literary Supplement , Christopher Hitchens 
lamented the announced intention of the Library of 
Congress to do away with the card catalog in the Main 
Reading Room of the Jefferson Building: "Part of the 
joy ...is the business of pulling out the smooth 
drawers and going through the beautifully arranged 
cards. As any reader knows, the pleasure lies in what 
you find while you are looking: in the distractions 
from the main quarry." 

In that one statement, Hitchens has encapsulated 
the tensions on both sides of the issue surrounding the 
replacement of the card catalog with a computerized 
catalog. I take the opportunity provided here to 
explore those tensions as seen by someone like 
myself—a daily user of the facilities of the Library 
of Congress. I am not a cataloger, not trained in 
library science, not versed in the subtleties of Cutter 
numbers. On the other hand, while I do not consider 
myself knowledgeable in all the ways of SCORPIO, MUMS, 
MARC, and PreMARC, I am familiar with the operating 
systems of computers and do, myself, use them regularly 
in my work. I am not, what you might call "computer 
shy." 


30 





































REFERENCE SERVICES 



From those impatient to get on with the change to a 
computer catalog, one often hears the complaint that 
most objections are nothing more than romantic 
claptrap. They tire of hearing old researchers speak 
lovingly of the sensation of flipping the cards, one 
after the other. They grow impatient with descriptions 
such as Hitchens': "...the joy...of pulling out the 
smooth drawers and going through the beautifully 
arranged cards." One must not fall into this trap. 
The old way is not always the best way. One must not 
let the comfort of familiarity determine the course of 
action. 

But, Lhere is the obverse danger: more and more, we 
identify technological innovation with the Baconian 
concept of progress. The fact that something can be 
done is all too often being used, these days, as 
justification for doing it. There are no better 
examples than from the computer industry itself. Recent 
innovations in miniaturization have given us the 
ability to build very small machines with relatively 
large amounts of computing power and memory. Any home 
can house a computer. But do we really need all tfiat 
power to keep a checkbook balanced? 

Searchin g for _I_nfor mat io n 

There are two reasons for consulting the catalog. 
The first is to discover what it is the Library has on 
a certain subject. It is the process of building a 
useful research bibliography. Almost always, my entry 
to the catalog in such a search is via subject 
headings. The second reason is to identify the call 
number of a particular item, so that one can obtain the 
item itself. 

There is no question that for calling items up, the 
computer is a far superior tool to the card catalog. 
Suppose that I am looking for six or seven items. With 
the card catalog, I have to consult several 
drawers —almost always not adjacent to each other—and 
ferret out the one card containing the information for 
which I am looking. Doing the equivalent task on the 
computer is much easier and faster. When searching for 
a call number, I almost always use MUMS and search by 
author/title, title, or author, depending on the 
information I have available. One can do an extensive 
search in very short order. 

The computer has but one disadvantage to the card 
catalog when it comes*to identifying call numbers. 
When I sit before the terminal, I tie up the entire 
catalog at that terminal. When I go to the card 
catalog, I never tie up more than one drawer. Hundreds 
of people can use the card catalog at the same time. 
On a busy day, that is often the case. For hundreds to 
use the computer catalog, hundreds of terminals are 
required. On a busy day in the Main Reading Room, I am 
often discouraged from using the computer for trivial 
searches because of people waiting for the terminals. 

T he Architecture of the Card Catalo g 

In searching for bibliography in the card catalog, 
the architecture of the catalog is an aid to the 
search. In the first place, all subject heading cards 
are identified by the red edge. Second, all the cards 
within a single subject heading are alphabetized. This 
means that where more than one edition of a work has 
been produced, one card follows the other in an orderly 


fashion. Third, at each point in the card catalog 
where it is needed, one encounters cross-references to 
other subject headings or to other author or title 
entries that might otherwise have gone unsuspected. 
And, most important of all, as one goes through the 
catalog, card by card, it is not the familiar and 
pleasing look or feel of the card that is so important; 
what is useful is that one is immediately presented 
with all the publication data that was originally 
available to the cataloger, including an organized 
description of the item, cross-referenced subject 
headings, and publication information. None of these 
conveniences are now available in the computer catalog. 

The Computer Cata logs 

At present in the computer catalog, there is no 
distinctive separation of subject headings from other 
kinds of headings. This could be solved either by 
using color monitors and rendering subject headings in 
different colors or, on a monochrome monitor, 
iconographically. 

As it now stands, entries gathered together by the 
computer under a given subject heading are organized 
not alphabetically, but by L.C card number. In other 
words, the order of the entries is a function of when 
the Library first took note of the item. I find this 
organization particularly disconcerting. Regardless of 
how a catalog is ordered, at some point one expects to 
deal with an alphabetical list. But custom and habit 
aside, as it stands now, multiple editions of the same 
work in several languages pop up in a most confusing, 
time-wasting way. I invite the reader to browse under 
RELATIVITY (PHYSICS). Under that rubric one finds a 
book written by Albert Einstein for a lay audience the 
title of which, in English is, Relativity , the Special, 
the General Theory . It is a book which first appeared 
in 1917, went through seventeen editions in Einstein's 
lifetime and is still in print. Have fun! 

Of course, the computer catalog could be modified 
to render items alphabetically. But, having written 
alphabetization programs myself, I appreciate the fact 
that there is considerable programming involved and 
that the computing time for organizing entries under a 
subject heading will go up by several orders of 
magnitude. 

The computer catalog now contains no built in cross 
references by subject heading. One must always consult 
Library of Co n gress Subject Headings (LCSH), complete 
separate searches and then, if desired, combine the 
whole thing. If one does this for all subject headings 
that might pertain to the history of the building of 
the atomic bomb, restricting the search to English 
language entries, one obtains 1,850 hits. While it is 
true that many of those hits are varying editions of 
the same work, it is a dizzying, discouraging, and 
disheartening specter that one confronts. I have 
actually seen people sitting at the computer catalog 
for long periods of time, printing out the "fruits" of 
such a search. 


One of the most insidious problems with the 
computer catalog is the errors it contains. At best, 
they are bothersome and at worst, they mean that 
thousands of items may be buried in the system. If one 
consults my old friend RELATIVITY (PHYSICS), one 
obtains about 350 hits in LCCC and and about 650 in 
PreMARC. It turns out there is more than one heading; 


31 







REFERENCE SERVICES 


variations such as RELATIVITY PHYSCIS [sic] exist. 
Never in my experience with the card catalog have I 
found a significant typographical error. The very 
nature of the process of building the catalog precludes 
the possibility. Furthermore, there are several 
instances in the computer catalog where items are 
sequestered away under subject headings no longer used 
and which no longer even appear in LCSH, again, a 
phenomenon which is precluded in the card catalog by 
the very nature in which it is built. The only 
solution to these problems in the computer catalog is 
constant vigil, not only with regard to proofreading, 
but with regard to making sure subject headings in the 
catalog correspond, one-to-one with headings in LCSH. 

In the computer catalog, one normally sees only an 
abbreviated version of the information on the card 
catalog entry. To see all of the information, one has 
to instruct the machine. In my experience and that of 
many researchers to whom" I have spoken, one Lends to 
avoid going to individual entry as excessively 
time-consuming; thus, a great deal of information is 
lost. The winnowing process, which should Lake place 
at the beginning of the research activity, often does 
not Lake place until the item itself is called for and 
appears. In the long run, much time and effort are 
needlessly consumed. 

Bu ilding a Catalog 

The structure of the card catalog did not emerge 
overnight. Its architecture was undoubtedly shaped by 
decades of the shared experiences of users, reference 
librarians, and catalogers. The computer catalog in 
the Library of Congress is now a poor substitute for 
the card catalog for those of us using the catalog as a 
research tool. 

There is no reason why the same kind of 
evolutionary process will not occur with the computer 
catalog, however. It would make sense though, to begin 
with an architecture which imitates the best that is 
currently available—the card catalog. A new program 
should be added to the computer memory. Perhaps it 
should be called "CARD". When called up, it would 
present the user with the entries in word-by-word 
alphabetization in precisely the same order that one 
finds in the card catalog: persons, places, and things. 
The user could define the size of a drawer by 
specifying the alphabetical range over which the search 
is desired, and once that is done, individual item 
entries could be presented, one at a time. 

There would still be problems. When one sits at a 
terminal, the entire catalog is tied up at that 
terminal. In order to provide the use-efficiency for 
the card catalog, hundreds of terminals would be 
needed. They are expensive, they would take up a great 
deal of room, and a item-by-item search would take up 
more time than is required at the card catalog. The 
terminals also would require the services of a good 
number of reference librarians. This is 
because—unlike the easy access that any novice has to 
the card catalog—for most of us, the special language 
one has to learn in order to get at the computer 
catalog is a forbidding barrier. As it stands, one 
must take a class in which an introduction to the most 
elementary set of commands and sorting features of 
SCORPIO are given. 

The upshot of all of this is that rather than 
making more of the contents of the Library more 


available to a wider range of serious users, the 
problems with the computer catalog make less of the 
Library less available to a narrower range of serious 
users. Surely that is not what is intended. 

So1utions 

Earlier, I pointed out that a computer was a poor 
tool to use for keeping one's personal checkbook in 
order. For the task at hand, the amount of programming 
time (or cost of buying a packaged program) is 
excessive. Using the computer makes the task more 
labor intensive than using a simple calculator and a 
notebook for keeping track of Lax-related expenses. 
This is an example of being swept along by what I often 
call the "technological fix". 

What I have said about keeping a personal 
checkbook, however, does not apply to a corporate 
checking account. At some point, the use of a computer 
becomes a desirable innovation. It is a function of 
size and complexity. (AnoLher view is that the 
availability of the computer allows corporations to 
become more structurally complex.) 

I have no doubt that Lhe computer catalog is here 
to stay. It allows access to Lhe current catalog from 
anywhere in Lhe world. NoLhing is better able to 
provide information on Lhe location of individual items 
and for specialized, restricted searches. But, for the 
bulk of the users of the Library, it is a slow, 
mysterious, inefficient albatross. 

There is no reason why both a computer and a card 
catalog could not be maintained. IL is sometimes 
argued Lhat there is not more room for card files. That 
makes no sense at all. There seems to be plenty of 
room for more computer terminals. It is sometimes 
argued that the card catalog is Loo expensive to 
maintain. As I have already suggested, maintaining the 
computer catalog is not going to be cheap, and it is 
not clear Lhat it will really be cheaper than cards. If 
the truth be known, keeping the computer catalog 
accurate and up-to-date is going to be as labor 
intensive as keeping any catalog accurate and 
up-to-date. 

The Library of Congress has recently undertaken a 
major renovation program of many of the public spaces 
in the Library, including Lhe Main Reading Room in the 
Jefferson Building. As I look down on the reading room 
from my current scholar's desk space, in my mind's eye, 
I have conceived of at least three designs which would 
preserve the wonderful character of the reading room 
and provide more than ample space for a card catalog 
for Lhe foreseeable future and beyond. It is not Lhat 
the old way is the best way, because it Lhe old way. 
In this case, the old way is the best because, for the 
bulk of the serious users of the Library, it still 
works best. 

Stanley Goldberg 
Smithsonian Institution 


32 






REFERENCE SERVICES 


ELECTRIFYING OBSESSION 

"Not yet. No, not yet." 

Peck ... peck ... bing. Click; 

c1ick. 

"Ahhh." 

Peck; peck. "Yes.- 'Unverified 

record.' Indeed ! " 

Peck ... peck ...peck. 

As if it were not bad enough to be searching for 
the great classics on a plastic and metallic box, I had 
to put up with the extremely clamorous antics and wild 
cacophony of a rather wizened-looking gnome to my left 
who was also sitting at one of the eighteen gray boxes 
in the Library of Congress' Computer Catalog ( No ta 
bene : NO 'ue') Center — the "CCC", I learned, to the 
initiated. 

I was in town for the annual APA meetings; having 
read my paper on the effects of gastric distress on the 
pronunciation of the initial labial in attic Greek, and 
having received scarcely due recognition, I had 
accepted the suggestion of a colleague of mine who had 
described his great success on LOCIS, SCORPIO, MUMS, 
and a great many acronyms of an obfuscatory nature. 

Here I sat after a kind but not entirely successful 
effort on the part of a reference specialist to teach 
me "key word searching" on MUMS. It all seemed 
straightforward enough, but ray gnashing of teeth at the 
omission of the diacritics almost led to an 
altercation with the hapless specialist, whose harried 
eyes had glazed over at the very mention of those 
forgotten, to him, meaningless, markings. 

Peck ... peck ... beep ... bang, as my bay-mate 
smashed his hands down on the keyboard of the terminal. 

"If you try really hard, you might be able to break 
it," said my kindly specialist with a fixed regard on 
my mate. 

"Sorry," was the barely audible reply, as he 
returned to his efforts. And what neo-Herculian 
efforts they appeared to be. One entry after another; 
one beep after another. A smile. A sigh. His narrow 
shoulders then slumped, then erect. An unutterably 
proud look of triumph alternating rapidly with one of 
defeat. I confess that my study of the use of the 
triphthong in Pindar paled beside my curiosity to know 
what was so driving this man. 

Bang. 

Rather than endure another censorious remark, he 
instantly arose, gathered together his wad of papers 
and left. Tiring of my boolean efforts, I followed 
and, using a conspiratorial approach, successfully 
ended by sharing coffee with my prey in the dubious 
snack bar of the venerable building. I easily got him 
to tell me his history, which proved just reward for my 
efforts. 

A successful doctoral candidate in political 
science from the University of *, his book had been 
published in 1967 , the very year he had taken a 
position in Kabul to teach political theory. Upon his 
return, only two years ago, he visited the Library of 
Congress and with natural curiosity, attempted to find 


a record of his work in the Card Catalogue, only to 
find none. Perplexed, since the work had received 
favorable reviews, his agitated query to the reference 
staff introduced my newly-discovered friend to PREMARC, 
or the automated fi.le of books catalogued before 1968. 
But what a record! My friend's name, Aloysius 
Cranfield, had become Alice Cranfeld! and his magnum 
opus , The Tactical Politics of Su bse rvience , was 
enshrined as The Tactful Polities of Ser vants ! Never 
the calmest of men, my friend resolved upon revenge. 

A revenge so deceitful, so artful, yet so involved, 
that in the end, it was both magnificent and 
destructive to his own health. In short, he resolved 
to be recorded in every data file in the Library, and 
to that end, he had visited the CCC once a month since 
to verify the results and make new assaults. 

"It all started," he explained, "with Copyright. I 
sent an application^ fee and one copy of an outline of 
the revision of my book into the Copyright Office for 
registration. From the first, my application was 
entered into COINS. My first file! Naturally, I had 
made an error on my application. They thought, 
however, they could get around that by calling me and 
asking for my permission to emend the application. 
Naturally, I acted the part of the angry taxpayer and 
instructed them to write me." 

Upon my asking why, he explained that all 
correspondence had to be entered into the Copyright 
Office's internal Correspondence Management System 
(CMS, God help me!) and a permanent file created ... 
Number 2. 

Of course, once his claim was registered, his work 
was sent to copyright cataloguing and entered into its 
online monograph file — COHM. 

"So far for copyright?" I concluded. 

"Oh no ... I chose to legally register a document 
of transfer of all right, to my cat, as it turns out. 
But they don't know that. No; that document now 
appears in COHM." 

My head began to ache when I realized that my own 
Vergil was leading me through the many rings of the 
modern-day abyss. 

"Next, I sent galleys of my revision to the 
Cataloging In Publication Office for cataloguing in 
advance of publication. They rapidly sent me the 
record and entered my work on line. You may recognize 
the tag on the record: Unverified CIP Record." 

"When will it be verified?" I asked naively. 

"I suppose if I intended to publish the work, once 
I had satisfied my end of the bargain and had sent them 
a copy. As I do not intend to do so, 'never' is your 
answer." 

"So now we have a SCORPIO and MUMS CIP record," I 
reflected wearily. 

"Yes; and since I have changed my name from the 
first edition, a change has now been duly made on the 
Name Authority file in MUMS." 

"File number ..." 

"Seven," he answered with a bit too much fervour. 


33 








REFERENCE SERVICES 


"Next, having made friends with the reference staff 
in the Main Reading Room and having secured their 
favour, I garnered a green request slip from one of 
them to request that the Library procure a copy of a 
variant form of my book from a fictitious publishing 
house. As a specialist in the field, I strongly 
recommended it. They had no choice but to pass it 
along to their Order Division." 

"My dear man, to what purpose?" 

"Why, I wanted the book to have a new cataloguing 
record entered through Descriptive Cataloging, of 
course." 

I saw no "of course" about it. "And ...?" 

"Not yet; I've seen other order records on APIF 

II 

I did not bother to ask. 

"... and I have been checking for at least five 
months now, but no "ordered" tag has appeared on the 
record; no priority has been established, not even a 
5. I must redefine my plan." 

At this point, my companion lapsed and began to 
appeal to himself. The coffee was gone; our cigarettes 
were out and we continued stychomytheically: 

"What next?" 

"BIBL." 

"BIBL?" 

"My article on the tactical subservience of 
Congress." 

"Will it be used?" 

"It is already LRS85-11111." 

"And then?" 

"NENUL! A revised Arabic version!" 

"And then?" wondering if he were going to set his 
opus to music or even choreograph it. 

"And then?" 

"Somehow, some way ... GAO ... CG ...NRCM ..." 

"An organization?" 

"Of one!" 

"Good God! When will you be done?" 

"Never. Never. Never. Never. Never ..." 


Levon Avdoyan 

General Reading Rooms Division 


COMPUTERS AND COPYRIGHT: 

THE AUTOMATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RECORDS 

Their fingers cautiously type out letters. They 
waver before pressing ENTER. Until the system 
processes the command, they frown in anticipation. When 
the automated record appears on the screen, their faces 
light up in relief. From time to time someone pulls 
out a camera and takes a photograph of the bright green 
display. 

The above drama, played out many times a day 
throughout the Library of Congress, has a special 
feeling in the reading room of the Copyright Office. To 
these files come members of the public, who are eager 
to see the technological display that confirms their 
creativity. In contrast to the Library of Congress 
Computerized Catalog and other automated files, the 
Copyright Office Automated Catalog is often a more 
personal record of the hopes and expectations of the 
American public. Many budding playwrights, aspiring 
composers, and hopeful novelists, who do not as yet see 
their creative endeavors in general circulation still 
derive a measure of satisfaction from being able to 
record their claims to copyright. For some, the 
appearance of their names and works in automated format 
may be as far as they will go in their field, but they 
have the copyright law to help bring them to that 
point. This is due to the more-1 ibera 1-then-ever 
provisions of the law itself. 

Changes in the Law 

Under the law of 1909, the only unpublished works 
able to be registered were music, drama and graphic 
arts. When the 1976 law became effective on January 1, 
1978, unpublished "nondramatic literary works" also 
were granted formal registration. The floodgates were 
opened for early manuscript versions of novels and even 
single chapters of projected books. Academic papers and 
bound volumes of poetry found their way into the Office 
and into the automated record. All of these works, one 
copy of each having been deposited in compliance with 
the regulations, form the core of the copyright 
deposits collection stored in Landover, Maryland. They 
are kept in perpetuity and, in time, may be the unique 
copies of the works; hence, they have value both as 
objects and as parts of contemporary creative output. 

In contrast, the published works which are 
deposited are first reviewed by various LC selection 
officers for inclusion in either the general or 
specialized collections. Those not selected remain in 
copyright storage for only five years (ten if they are 
graphic works), after which they are re-offered to LC 
before proceeding to Exchange & Gift Division. 

No catalog cards are being produced as a hard-copy 
back-up file for any works other than serials. 
Furthermore, since the unpublished works are not 
immediately available as are most of the LC 
collections, and because the published works are 
scattered throughout the Library, the automated records 
are the sole means of access for copyright information 
from 1978 onward. These records exist in two 
subsystems of SCORPIO, the Copyright Office History 
Monographs file (COHM) for all works other Lhan 
serials, and the CopyrighL Office History Documents 
file (COHD). Research in the files reflects the fact 
that the CopyrighL Office, by administering the law, is 
a channel for both physical objects and the abstract 
claims to copyright. 


34 






REFERENCE SERVICES 


In-person Reference Assistance 

On any given day, research in COHM and COHD 
involves various types of requests, handled by either 
the staff of the Reference and Bibliography Section or 
members of the public themselves. The most common 
problem is The Lost Copyright Certificate. Fires, 
floods and thefts seem to plague the writers of songs 
and first drafts of plays. If registration has been 
effected, however, the information can be found under 
name of author or claimant and title. For a fee, a 
certified copy of the original application then can be 
provided. This is, thus, a restitution to the patron 
of his or her prima fa cie evidence of the claim to 
copyright. If the material itself has been lost or 
destroyed, the deposit copy serves as the master from 
which a replacement is made (for a further fee). COHM 
is also useful in locating addresses of firms or 
individuals. Since these may not appear in any other 
catalog or reference source, the value of the copynghL 
record becomes apparent. 


The more frustrating business of copyright 
negotiations — contracts, verbal agreements and the 
like, all of which are not handled in the Office—is 
reflected in the "holes" in the record. For example, a 
songwriter may come to the files to confirm the 
registered claim to a composition which he or she 
handed over to a music publisher some time before. 
When no record appears under the name of the music 
publisher, the writer's name or pseudonym, or even the 
title of the song, the bibliographer needs to call up 
diplomatic skills to explain why the work was not 
registered: negligence by the publisher, unanswered 
Copyright Office correspondence, lost material, or a 
computer glitch. An in-process or correspondence 
search may help to locate the song, or in the worst 
case establish that there was never a receipt of it in 
the Office. Although the regulations are liberal 
enough that registration still may be effected, worries 
of threat and duplicity surrounding the rights to a 
creative effort necessarily color reference assistance. 

This highly personal investment in the material 
results in feelings very different from the inability 
to locate a magazine article or receiving a call slip 
marked "Not On Shelf." 

The reference work in the Copyright Office often 
deals more with the intellectual property than literal 
objects, thereby distinguishing it from research in 
other LC catalogs. A reader using LCCC, MUMS or the 
Congressional files is generally in pursuit of a 
monograph, article or bill. In searching through COHM, 
however, the reader may be satisfied to have extracted 
from it the ideas discovered: whether a certain work 
was registered or not, who the claimant was, what was 
the effective date of registration, and so on. Of 
course, the hard copy is there to document this 
information, but often the discovery of "the right to 
make copies" is sufficient for the researcher. 

This abstract quality is enhanced when the reader 
searches the COHD file, which is the record of 
documents filed in the Office since 1978. These 
documents, recorded by interested parties, are 
instruments of transfer, catalog sales, abandonment of 
copyright, mergers and similar transactions which 
affect the history of a particular claim to copyright. 
The documents themselves exist in microform copy in the 
reading room, although the researcher does not need to 
refer to them if, for example, getting the name of the 


most recent claimant is sufficient for his or her 
purposes. Thus, this file too can serve as a 
self-contained compendium of ideas, rather than an 
index to some physical object. 

Both COHM and COHD have had an impact on the staff 
of the Information and Reference Division of the 
Copyright Office by adding to the duties of the 
copyright bibliographers. As the investigators and 
interpreters of the automated systems, they first have 
had to master the technology, where before they 
abstracted and coordinated information from catalog 
cards alone. A new duty has also evolved in the form 
of rotational reference assistance; the bibliographers 
now instruct the patrons in the use of the system, 
often the patron's first hands-on experience. Finally, 
these same staff members serve other LC staff, most 
often from Performing Arts and Prints and Photographs 
divisions, who come to hunt up the unique information 
that may exist only in copyright records. 

Eric Zengota 
Copyright Office 


LOCIS-LEARNERS AND LOTOS-EATERS 

A neophyte LOCIS-user (not to be confused with 
Tennyson's lotos-eaters, please) can choose one of 
three ways to learn the system. The General Reading 
Rooms Division (GRR) offers class instruction, 
self-instruction through manuals or the TEACH program, 
and individual tutoring from a reference librarian. 
This article describes the last method, although I will 
not hide from you, dear reader, the sad fact that some 
neophytes are so neo they could benefit from all three, 
seriatim. However. 

Since there are approximately forty librarians who 
share teaching duties at the Computer Catalog Center 
(CCC), there are at least forty different methods of 
teaching. And, to further complicate this article, how 
one teaches depends to some extent on the type of 
reader one is teaching. In the interest of brevity and 
clarity, then, what follows is a highly idiosyncratic 
account of the types of users I've encountered over the 
years and the ways in which I teach them, with sample 
dialogues. 

The overeager underachievers : so anxious to get 
some "hands on" experience that they anticipate your 
instructions, finish your sentences, and consequently 
don't listen to a word you say. 

Me: Type "b," which stands for browse, leave a 
space, then type your sub... 

They: Right, yeah, I entered it already. 

Me: But you didn't tell the computer what to look 
for, so we'll start again from "b," space, put in your 
subject heading that we found... 

They: Why does it take so long to learn? 

The sneaky beepers : just can't keep that cursor to 
the right of the stationary blip, don't understand that 
the beeping is a warning to cease and desist, and after 
driving everyone demented with the noise, they refuse 
to admit it when you ask, "Who's beeping, please?" 


35 








REFERENCE SERVICES 


Me: Who's beeping, please? 

They: (in chorus) Not me. 

The computerphobes : identifiable by their dragging 
footsteps, trembling hands, and constant cries of "I'll 
never learn—failed math in school." 

Me: Take a deep breath and relax. You can't hurt 
the computer and it can't hurt you. 

They: moan... 

The computer mavens : related to the overeager 
underachievers but much easier to teach. They know 
enough about computers not to be overawed by them and 
to realized that each system has its own quirks; they 
listen intelligently to your voice-over as they follow 
the manual. 

They: I type "bgns lccc," enter, and wait. 

Me: That's right. 

They: Now I type "b" and my author, last name 
first. 

Me: That's right. 

The tabulae rasae : as the name implies, without any 
knowledge of computers, but open to learning. 

Me; Have you used the system before? 

They: Never used a computer before, but I'm willing 
to learn. 

And finally, 

The lotos-eaters : the dreamers who believe that 
computers absolve mankind from all earthly labors. 
They type in their family name and expect their 
genealogy to appear, illustrated with their family 
tree, or they enter the title of the book they've been 
assigned to read, and expect a neat precis and several 
reviews to flash onto the screen. 

Me: This is essentially a computerized card 
catalog, offering bibliographical information only. 

They: Well, what's the answer to ray question? 

Although reader response to LOCIS is as diverse as 
the fanciful categories I've sorted them into, there 
are certain teaching strategies and techniques that can 
be used with all LOCIS-learners. First, it's important 
to establish their purpose and whether they need to 
learn the computer. For example, people on a brief or 
casual visit or in a great hurry are quite happy to let 
me find the titles they want. While we can't do 
extended searching, quick lookups by the librarians are 
much more efficient than teaching something that can be 
used only at LC. Second, if the readers do their own 
searching, I work with them to establish the correct 
subject headings; this often entails explaining what 
sa , x, and sex mean, what subdivisions are, and other 
tricks of the library trade. It's very satisfying to 
teach the rudiments of the "red books," since this 
knowledge is transferable to all libraries using the LC 
classification scheme. 

Third, whenever possible, I sit next to the readers 
rather than looming over them in a teacherly fashion; 
besides putting them at ease, sitting allows me to see 
their reactions and sometimes anticipate problems 
before they hit the "enter" key. Fourth, and most 
important, I repeat to myself at regular intervals: 
"Patience, patience." 


These are the commonalities; the differences in my 
approaches to the various types of LOCIS-learners are 
really differences of tone. The overeager 
underachievers and the sneaky beepers respond well to a 
firm and authoritative voice, rising in volume as the 
noise level rises, but remaining calm. The 
computerphobes must be jollied along, with constant 
positive reinforcement. 

The mavens and the tabulae rasae can usually be 
treated quite straightforwardly; since they are 
relaxed about using the terminals, the hardware doesn't 
form a barrier to communication between reader and 
librarian. With the lotos-eaters, all the skills 
mentioned above come into play--to wake them from their 
vision of effortless knowledge requires patience, calm, 
good humor, firmness, and yet more patience. 

Fortunately for those of us who teach LOCIS, since 
they are the hardest to reach, the last category of 
users is the rarest. My biggest failure, and also the 
funniest, arose from an encounter with a student 
lotos-eater. She was working on a class assignment; 
another student had been in the day before and had 
retrieved some items relevant to the topic. We found 
all but one of the references, but that last one 
remained unfindable no matter what search strategy I 
tried. When at last I confessed defeat, the student 
was philosophical about it. Patting ray arm, she said 
consolingly, "Never mind. I'm sure she just took it out 
of the computer so that nobody else in the class could 
have it. She does things like that all the time." And 
with that, she drifted away. 

Judith Farley 

General Reading Rooms Division 


TRAINING BY THE NUMBERS 

To the roster of large numbers associated with 
LC--its collection of 80 million items, including 20 
million books and pamphlets, its card catalogs with 90 
million cards, its cataloging in 460 languages--add one 
more: approximately 1,000 people each week come to the 
Computer Catalog Center in the Main Reading Room to 
find recent books, periodical articles, or legislation 
on topics of interest. Over half of these readers are 
new or infrequent users of the online systems; about 10 
percent are long-time researchers. 

The Computer Catalog Center 

When the Computer Catalog Center (CCC) opened in 
1977 with six terminals, one reference librarian could 
provide assistance to users one at a time. In 1981, 
the online systems became more important to researchers 
as the card catalog was closed. That same year the CCC 
expanded to eighteen terminals, with two librarians 
attempting to respond to users' needs. Librarians 
often considered their time in the Computer Catalog 
Center onerous duty, joking tiredly that they needed 
the patience of Job and the arms of Shiva to help 
everyone who requested assistance. Although 
enhancements in the systems made searching more 
elegant, little was done to make it easier. Clearly, a 
way to train more than one reader at a time was needed. 


36 












REFERENCE SERVICES 


The General Reading Rooms Division began Co 
invesligale group training early in 1983. 
Unfortunately, both the user survey by Sarah Pritchard 
("Scorpio: a Study of Public Users of the Library of 
Congress Information System". (January, 1981) Available 
on ERIC, ED198—801) and the 1982 survey of online 
public catalogs, sponsored by the Council on Library 
Resources (Joseph R. Matthew, Gary S. Lawrence, Douglas 
K. Ferguson, eds.. Usi ng Online Catalog s: A Na tionwide 
Su rvey (New York, Neal-Schuman Pub 1 i sh"e~rs'7~T983)), 
reported that users doubted the value of classroom 
instruction, naturally preferring other, more personal 
approaches. When the Division looked at automation 
training programs in the Library, however, one very 
successful example of classes stood out--the 
instruction provided by the Office of Automated 
Information Services (AIS) of the Congressional 
Research Service. 

AIS began its training efforts in extremely 
inauspicious circumstances. Congressional offices 
would call and make an appointment with a trainer, who 
went to the office to teach staff. The normal business 
of the office would continue. Staff could be pulled 
away from training to perform other duties. Visitors 
needed greeting; phones needed answering. Obviously, 
training in these surroundings was less than 
satisfactory. In 1978, AIS offered its first formal 
classes, six hours of hands - on instruction spread over 
several days. As AIS trainers gained experience, they 
shortened the classes to four hours in one or two days. 
AIS currently trains approximately 1,000 people each 
year in all aspects of automated information retrieval 
through these classes. In addition, the 
computer-assisted instruction provided by the PLATO 
system has met the continuing need for individual 
training. 

The General Reading Rooms Division, encouraged by 
the success of AIS's classroom efforts, offered 
instruction to researchers in groups of three or four 
in early 1983. Shortly afterward, a new facility, the 
Automation Orientation Center (AOC), opened in the 
Madison Building. Equipped with a device which allowed 
online searches to be projected onto a screen, the 
auditorium of the AOC provided the first opportunity 
for teaching larger groups of readers using "live" 
searches. While this was an improvement over earlier 
methods, which were limited either to very small groups 
or to simulated searching, the essential connection 
between user and terminal was still lacking. 

Then, in June of 1983* sixteen terminals were added 
to another part of the Automation Orientation Center, 
making hands-on instruction available to public users 
for the first time. Since then, more than 2,000 
students have attended more than 300 classes. In spite 
of the user surveys' predictions, readers' reactions 
have been very positive from the beginning. 

CRS Training 

The Congressional Research Service assists Members 
of Congress and their staffs, and the training offered 
by AIS reflects this specialized clientele. AIS 
concentrates on the legislative and current awareness 
files, two parts of the SCORPIO system. The trainers 
pay less attention to other SCORPIO files or to MUMS 
because their users generally do not need them. As a 
result of this fairly specific focus, AIS has been able 
to develop excellent teaching documentation, in the 
form of user-instruction manuals and the PLATO system 


based on those manuals. Also, since Congressional 
staffs tend to remain fairly constant, CRS's users have 
become more sophisticated over the years and have 
requested the inclusion of more complex features in 
their files. This demand, in turn, has drawn ever more 
responsive training and documentation from AIS. 
Recently, AIS has been able to offer Congressional 
users individual assistance with particular searches. 
Ironically, this new service, one-on-one guidance, was 
precisely the situation GRR was attempting to minimize 
by opening its classes. 

GRR Training 

The general reading rooms, on the other hand, serve 
government agencies, the scholarly community, and the 
public. The information needs of these groups are much 
broader than those of CRS's clients, and they tend to 
be more traditional, that is, they focus on the book 
and periodical resources of the Library. In response, 
GRR offers a series of training sessions, beginning and 
advanced, in both the MUMS and SCORPIO systems. This 
breadth of scope has resulted in outstanding summary 
documentation, but not in specific user instruction 
aids. In addition, the number and variety of such 
users seems to require greater attention to the basic 
techniques of searching the automated files, often to 
the exclusion of the more powerful and glamorous 
features. 

AIS also trains other CRS staff members, not only 
in the use of LC's automated system, but also on the 
commercial databases. Clearly, such training 
contributes to the important mission of CRS by 
enhancing the skills of employees and making them 
better, more effective researchers. When GRR began its 
classes, however, transfer assumed that their goal was 
to acquaint users of the Library with the ways of 
automated searching. The training of GRR's own staff 
was seen as a beneficial by-product of this basic 
instruction. When all of the first classes were filled 
by LC staff members, trainers were both surprised and 
chagrined. Classroom space was suddenly unavailable to 
the users for whom the training had been established. A 
stated limit to the number of staff members allowed in 
any class resolved this problem, but statistics show 
that over one quarter of the users trained by GRR are 
still LC employees, most of them from other Research 
Services Department divisions. In spite of the fact 
that this training was designed for public users, GRR's 
classes are obviously filling a void in LC's training 
of staff. The degree to which other areas of LC are 
responsible for training their own staffs, not to 
mention their own specialized readers, remains 
undecided. 

Future of Group Training 

What is the future of group training for users of 
the Library? Such teaching is certainly 
labor-intensive; AIS estimated that is devotes 400 to 
500 hours per year to training, with GRR averaging 
between 350 and 400 hours. To this time must be added 
time for. the preparation and maintenance of 
documentation. Clearly, these training efforts require 
a serious commitment on the part of the parent 
departments. I§ such a commitment prudent? 

A recent unpublished study prepared for the Council 
on Library Resources by Brian Nielsen, Betsy Baker, 
and Beth Sandore and entitled "Educating the Online 
Catalog User: a Model for Instructional Development and 
Evaluation", indicates that the evaluation of training 


37 










REFERENCE SERVICES 


c lasses is a difficult matter at best. WriLLen tests 
do not accurately reflect user behavior in front of a 
terminal, while the analysis of transaction Logs (if 
meaningful logs can even be kept) is a cumbersome and 
expensive process. Neither AIS nor GRR have 
incontrovertible proof of the effectiveness of their 
training programs. Nevertheless, the demand for 
training continues to increase. Upcoming changes 
designed to provide online assistance, to make the 
systems more "user friendly," will certainly help users 
proceed more smoothly through their searches. Budget 
and staff cutbacks may change the amount and perhaps 
Lhe quality of group training that is available to 
Congress and the public, but some sort of group 
instruction is likely to continue simply because Lhe 
alternatives—no instruction or teaching one at a 
time-~are now unworkable. 

Librarians in both AIS and GRR feel that users are 
more confident and more efficient searchers. Moreover, 
the trainers themselves have become more aware of Lhe 
problems faced by users of Lhe systems and have learned 
ingenious ways to resolve those difficulties at the 
same time that they act as articulate advocates for 
system improvements. Although the need for Lhe 
individual attention given by one librarian to one 
researcher will never disappear, group training 
undoubtedly provides a vital service to the many users 
of Lhe automated resources of the Library. 

Margaret Morrison 

University of Central Arkansas 

(formerly General Reading Rooms Division) 


THE NEW REFERENCE LIBRARIAN 

Automation has had a tremendous impact on the 
day-to-day activities of the reference librarian at the 
Library of Congress. Indeed, new technology has led to 
the creation of a "new" reference librarian-- one who 
is computer-conscious and makes use of a variety of 
automated resources as a part of everyday reference 
service. This paper will present a composite profile 
of the new reference librarian, based on the education 
and training, daily automation activities on the job, 
and continuing professional development of staff 
members who provide public reference service at the 
Library of Congress. 

Education and Training 

Since the 1970's, library schools have begun to 
emphasize information science courses, in addition to 
courses on traditional 1ibrariansh ip. Many graduate 
schools of library science are becoming graduate 
schools of library and i nformation science not only 
through name changes, but also through real changes in 
curriculum content. Students can concentrate or 
specialize in information science by choosing electives 
designed to train information professionals. 


What started as a few courses dealing with 
automation of standard library functions—technical 
services and circulation, for example— has quickly 
multiplied to courses and programs covering the use of 
new technologies in all library functions. Today a 
librarian who has just graduated from library school 
will have studied reference with a new focus on 
automation. 

In a 1982 survey of graduate library school 
catalogs, library consultant Howard Fosdick grouped the 
available courses into five categories*: 

Library Automation : The use of computers to 
automate traditional library functions such as 
cataloging, circulation, and serials check-in. 

Information Storage and Retrieval : The theoretical 
and practical aspects of information science. 

Systems Analysis : The use of statistical methods 
to measure and evaluate library operations and 
services. 

Interactive Computer Systems : Information storage 
and retrieval of online search systems. 

Programming : Solving library problems through 
computer applications. 

Fosdick found that "almost all the schools teach one or 
more courses in information storage and retrieval, 
while nearly 75 percent of the schools teach courses 
in library automation, systems analysis, and 
interactive computer systems. Almost 40 percent of 
the schools offer one or more programming courses. 

In addition to special courses devoted to 
information science, most library schools integrate 
automation into traditional library courses. Many of 
the courses on reference services include instruction 
on the use of online retrieval systems such as DIALOG, 
BRS, SDC, and OCLC.-* Thus, reference librarians at LC 
who are recent library school graduates have most 
likely used one or more search systems and easily can 
adapt to the Library's own SCORPIO and MUMS systems in 
a relatively short time period. 

Continuing Education and Professional Development 

A variety of seminars, training courses, and update 
sessions are available for the reference librarian to 
keep up with the ever-increasing number of online 
systems. Many of the commercial database vendors such 
as DIALOG and NEXIS provide basic and special 
instruction sessions for the use of their systems. At 
the Library of Congress, the Federal Library and 
Information Center Committee offers courses on 
searching the national utilities such as OCLC and RLIN. 
The General Reading Rooms Division (GRR) regularly 
provides beginning and advanced training sessions for 
MUMS and SCORPIO. Reference librarians in GRR also 
organize workshops and refresher courses for staff 
members whenever the system undergoes a new release. In 
this way, key trainers are able to keep all of the 
reference librarians and specialists informed of the 
new system functions and search techniques. 

In addition to the various training sessions, the 
new reference librarian depends on the professional 
literature to keep abreast of the latest automation 
developments. American Libraries , Library Journal, 


38 














REFERENCE SERVICES 


Wilson Library Bulletin , and Reference Quarterly are 
just a few of the many professional journals which have 
regular columns devoted to automation and online 
systems. Other journals, such as Database , Online , 
Information Today , and Chronolog have as their entire 
focus specific areas of online information and 
retrieval systems. Locally, the General Reading Rooms 
Division produces a newsletter, XMIT ONLY , especially 
for reference librarians at the Library of Congress. 
XMIT addresses automation issues specific to the 

Library of Congress Information System (LOCIS) and 
occasionally has articles about other commercial 
databases. Additionally, the LCPA Newsletter regularly 
provides the professional librarian with a column on 
microcomputers. 

Professional organizations like the American 
Library Association (ALA) also offer reference 
librarians a chance to learn more about automation in 
two ways: through the programs of the annual or 
midwinter conferences which focus on topics of online 
information retrieval, or through various committees 
which deal with automation issues. One recent example 
of a valuable conference program was presented at the 
1985 Annual ALA Conference in Chicago. The 
Machine-Assisted Reference Section (MARS) of the 
Reference and Adult Services Division (RASD) sponsored 
a program on end-user systems. The participants 
discussed online systems operated directly by patrons, 
something very familiar to librarians at the Library of 
Congress. 

MARS also has five standing committees covering the 
following topics: nonbibliographic databases and data 
files, education and training of search analysts, use 
of machine-assisted reference services in public 
libraries, direct patron access to computer-based 
reference systems, and measurement and evaluation of 
services. These committees produce publications, 
standards, and guidelines which are immediately 
relevant to reference work at LC. Unfortunately, many 
of these useful resources are unintentionally 
overlooked due to the demanding workload and tremendous 
amount of other literature available. Nevertheless, a 
handful of LC reference librarians traditionally have 
been active on MARS committees, a fact which 
demonstrates their commitment to professional 
development, as well as their general interest in the 
recent trends and future uses of automation in 
reference service. 

Daily Automated Reference Activities 

To appreciate the full impact of automation at the 
Library of Congress, simply look at the everyday 
activities of a general reference librarian. Reference 
librarians use LOCIS on a daily, if not hourly, basis. 
They tend to be among the most skilled searchers in the 
Library, since they must be able to use and explain all 
of LC's online systems and files equally well. No 
portion of LOCIS is out of scope when it comes to 
reader requests. Librarians must not only provide 
information on the strengths of the online systems, but 
they also must be prepared to explain the limitations 
of the system to readers. Many people approach the 
computer with the assumption that everything can be 
located online. Reference librarians must constantly 
put the system within a larger context and refer 
readers to other indexes and catalogs. The fact 
remains that, as good as the online systems are, Lhey 
provide access to only a fraction of LC's holdings. 


Each reading room in the Library is equipped with 
at least one terminal to provide readers with access to 
the SCORPIO and MUMS systems. In addition, the Computer 
Catalog Center (CCC), adjacent to the Main Reading 
Room, contains 17 terminals and is staffed by two 
librarians. After the renovation, there will be 
another CCC in Lhe Adams Building between the Science 
and Social Science Reading Rooms and a greatly expanded 
center in the Main Reading Room. At the present time, 
the CCC is staffed by librarians from the General 
Reference Directorate of the Research Services 
Department and some catalogers from the Descriptive and 
Shared Cataloging Divisions, who are participating in 
an experimental program through which they can work 
with the users of catalog records. In the future, 
these librarians should be joined by librarians from 
Area Studies and Special Collections so that readers 
can obtain the best service possible in the areas of 
the Library with the highest concentration of public 
terminals. This will become even more important as new 
files such as manuscripts and visual materials are 
added to LOCIS. Librarians from Area Studies and 
Special Collections will increasingly need more and 
better training on using LOCIS. To satisfy this need, 
there is no better training than the experience of 
working with the public at the CCC. In the past few 
years, a new option for learning the LC compu ter 
systems has become available to readers-- they can 
attend group sessions to learn how to use SCORPIO and 
MUMS. In addition to their other duties, reference 
librarians in the General Reading Rooms Division serve 
as instructors for these sessions. 

Behind the scenes, several reference librarians 
take the opportunity to participate in automation 
planning together with staff members from all 
departments of the Library. Traditionally, the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Processing 
Services have determined much of the direction and 
priorities for automation projects at the Library. 
Research Services has needed a stronger voice in 
automation planning, and, as a step in this direction, 
reference librarians from Research Services now join 
staff members from the other departments to take an 
active role in developing new LOCIS applications. 
Reference staff also send representatives to various 
committees of the Retrieval Advisory Group (RAG), where 
they play an important part in designing new features, 
indexing, and displays for files in LOCIS and recommend 
priorities for future projects. 

The Reference Librarian in the Future 

This profile of a reference librarian would not be 
complete without a brief discussion about some 
possibilities for changes in the future. 

One area in which the Library of Congress lags 
behind most other libraries is in providing access to 
commercial databases. At the present time, there is no 
clear policy for completing online searches in 
commercially available online systems for our readers. 
The problem of fees and cost recovery seems to be the 
reason for the delay in implementing such a service at 
the Library. Reference librarians do have access to 
these systems and can use them for readers at their 
discretion, but the fact remains that, except for some 
of the bibliographic utilities (OCLC and RLIN), 
commercial databases are not now generally used in 
public reference service by most of the staff. What is 
needed from management is a policy for online searching 
and a commitment to try some approaches to providing 


39 














REFERENCE SERVICES 


this type of service. At the very least, the various 
reading rooms could develop policies and implement 
ready-reference online searching at the reference desk. 
It would be relatively easy to place dial-up terminals 
at reference stations for use in quick reference checks 
of commercial databases and bibliographic utilities. 

Recent technology has provided a new option for 
readers to search commercial databases for themselves. 
End-user searching of various online files has been 
made easier through front-ends and gateways. These are 
software packages and intermediary computers that 
connect the user with particular online systems. Some 
provide menus or simplified translations of search 
commands so that first time users can use the systems 
for themselves. Others help the user select the 
relevant databases and set up the search strategy, 
store phone numbers, and automatically log on and run 
the search. Many front-ends and gateways are already 
on the market and available to libraries, and their 
number is growing almost daily.^ 

On the other hand, one area in which LC is 
pioneering is optical disk technology. The Optical 
Disk Pilot Project is well underway: terminals have 
been installed in major reading rooms, have been tested 
and evaluated by staff members, and the public now has 
access to the Optical Disk Information System. Readers 
are able to move from a bibliographic citation to the 
full text of a document at the terminal. Reference 
librarians have a major role in providing assistance 
and training on the optical disk system. 

What are other possibilities for the future of 
reference librarians at the Library of Congress? As 
with other areas around the Library, microcomputers 
will most likely make their way into the everyday work 
of reference staff. Micros could be used to produce 
reading room staff schedules, to manipulate and provide 
reports on reference statistics, and to create 
databases of common reference questions, reference book 
locations, or other locally-produced files. These same 
microcomputers could be used by readers to access 
commercial database systems via the front-ends and 
gateways discussed above. In addition, some of the 
machine-readable files and software now coming into the 
Library through the Copyright Office and the Cataloging 
in Publication program might finally be made available 
in an "electroform" reading room in the not too distant 
future. 


Will the reference librarian at LC be able to deal 
with all areas of automation? Can staff members even 
hope to keep up with all of the available literature or 
learn ail of the command languages and search features 
of all online systems? Given the fact that reference 
librarians must continue to learn and review standard 
reference sources in all fields, develop specialties in 
assigned subject areas, and spend most of their day on 
the desk, the answer to the above questions must be 
"no." To attempt even to accomplish universal staff 
knowledge of automation, management must help by 
providing more training opportunities and more staff so 
that librarians can have time away from the desk to 
develop expertise in automation. 

A more likely and more manageable scenario, 
however, would be the emergence of staff members who 
are specially trained in a variety of automation 
technologies. Thus, general reference librarians could 
develop the necessary skill in using LOCIS, and the 
automation specialists could provide service on the 
ever growing number of information storage and 


retrieval devices and systems, preferably in a 
well-equipped reading room or automation center. 


Whatever the Library decides to do, two things are 
certain: now is the time to start planning for future 
developments in automation, and the new reference 
librarian will continue to make use of an increasing 
number of automated resources to provide reference 
service at the Library of Congress. 


Louis Drummond 

General Reading Rooms Division 

1. Howard Fosdick, "Trends in Information Science 
Education," Special Libraries 75 (October 1984): 293. 

2. Fosdick, 293-294. 

3. Fosdick, 295. 

4. For a simple description and some examples of 

front-ends and gateways, see: Martin Kesselman, 

"Online Update," Wilson Library Bulletin 58 (December 
1984): 272-273. 


40 






THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


THE OPTICAL DISK PRINT PILOT PROGRAM 
AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


"There are no limits to the imagination when not 
charged with the task of implementation." 

"How does a project get delayed for a year? One day 
at a time..." 

The above quips are probably familiar to those of 
you who keep up with the latest in office bulletin 
board witticisms. As civil servants, we are perhaps 
most vulnerable to allegations of "government waste" in 
this era of over-priced coffee pots. As staff of the 
Library of Congress, we are perhaps most keenly aware 
of the fiscal scrutiny of our boss—the Congress 
itse1f--since that legislative body supports the 
projects which, no matter how well-intended, may go 
awry in the long journey from planning to implementa¬ 
tion. The fact that the Optical Disk Pilot Program at 
the Library of Congress was begun and has continued 
with overall Congressional approval perhaps makes a 
positive statement not only about the promise of this 
technology, but also about the way the program has been 
organized since its inception. In fact, the saga of 
how the Library of Congress has proceeded internally to 
test optical disk storage may be as dramatic as that of 
technology moving toward a level of maturity which may 
someday lead us to the "paperless library." 

Th ink T ank Formed « 

In March 1982, William Welsh, Deputy Librarian of 
Congress, established an Ad Hoc Committee 
(affectionately known as the "Think Tank") to "study 
the impact of Optical Disk technology on the Library of 
Congress." This inter-departmental group met 
frequently thereafter and in December 1982 issued 
several substantive progress reports. These reports 
considered the impact of optical disk storage in the 
context of technologies already implemented in the 
Library of Congress since 1946, as well as the 
likelihood of an even more dense storage medium coming 
down the pike. The Think Tank groups outlined five 
stages generally involved in introducing new technology 
into the Library: (1) concept, (2) experiment, (3) 
pilot application, (4) early production, (5) mature 
use. They projected 1984 as the date for beginning the 
experiment in the new technology, followed closely by 
the beginning of a pilot program. The Committee cited 
"high density storage" as the overriding requirement 
for selecting optical disk technology, and listed 
preservation, service, and access (including linkage 
with existing systems) as the primary reasons for 
applying the technology at the Library of Congress. 
Perhaps the most astute recommendation made by the 
Committee was that "overarching coordination which can 
cross the departmental structure will be needed and can 
only be effectively provided by some single management 
assignment." 

Mat r ix Mana g ement Chosen 


On February 9, 1983, a Special Announcement was 
issued from the Office of the Librarian outlining a 
Three-Year Management Plan for the Optical Disk Pilot 
Program, to include both the Print and Non-Print 
Collections. It was clearly stated in this announce¬ 
ment that the objective of the program was "to evaluate 
the use of optical disk technology for information 
preservation and management to determine if such a 


system could be put to wider use in the future." Next 
began the task of identifying staff throughout the 
Library whose talents and skills in a wide range of 
areas would be needed to make the project a success. 
Joseph Price, chief of the Science and Technology 
Division, was named Director of Projects to serve as 
the top line manager of the program. Peter Sparks, 
Director for Preservation, was given an advisory role 
on the operation of the management plan. His first 
suggestion was to introduce the concept of "matrix 
management" and to proceed to apply it to the pilot 
program. Since the project was clearly evolving as an 
inter-departmental effort, with over 75 people from at 
least 12 Library offices and divisions ultimately 
assigned to various projects, some standard operating 
procedures needed to be developed for managing the 
matrix. To complicate matters, each of the 75 people 
would continue to perform the regular duties of their 
official LC positions while taking on a variety of 
tasks for the Optical Disk program. The usual "chain 
of command" which was necessary to the execution of 
duties in their official positions would not be used 
within the project. It would not always be clear to 
whom a particular problem on the project should be 
referred, and more often than not, problems would be 
solved jointly, by committee, with knowledge and 
expertise creating its own hierarchy. Clearly, members 
of the matrix would have to possess a high tolerance 
for ambiguity, relying on their own instincts and 
creativity for problem solving. Again, seen in the 
context of government bureaucracy, the successful use 
of matrix management on the project is no less mira¬ 
culous than a technology which promises to capture one 
million images in a standard-sized juke box occupying 
15 square feet of space. 

To simplify matters, and to coordinate basic acti¬ 
vities, managers were named to head each project. 
Projects which comprised the print pilot program were 
Design Print Pilot Experiment; Print Contract 
Monitoring; Print Installation and Acceptance Testing; 
Print Pilot Operation; Design Disk Test Facility, and 
Future Issues. 

Other Developments 

At about this time, late in 1983, the Library 
entered into a contractual agreement with Integrated 
Automation of Alameda, California. IA would provide 
the custom-built equipment and the Library's Automated 
Systems Office would develop the accompanying software. 
The 1.7 million dollars to be spent on the hardware 
would be absorbed by ASO and the various departments 
would contribute personnel resources. As already dis¬ 
cussed, the majority of the staff would already be on 
board and would now be performing collateral duties, 
thus precluding the need for much additional hiring. 
Down the road, staff would be hired on an indefinite 
basis (in most cases with duties extending beyond the 
Optical Disk Program) to actually create the data base 
(i.e. perform input scanning) when the project became 
operational. Was it no wonder that the Congress 
reacted favorably to the project, given these fiscal 
benefits which the matrix management approach afforded? 

As if this was not enough of a selling point, 
consider the promise of the technology for solving a 
growing space problem which, if unheeded, might mean 
the need for a fourth Library building on Capitol Hill, 
as 7,000 new items are accessioned each day. Consider 
the improved service to the Members of Congress and 
their staffs in the form of rapid document delivery via 
terminals. As icing on the cake, the Library would be 


41 





THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


the first organization to test the technology with the 
goal of "writing" images to and "reading" images from 
optical digital disks. 

Late in 1983, other major developments were 
occurring. At this time, the Print Design Team began 
the task of developing a blue print for the pilot 
program with Ellen Hahn, chief of the General Reading 
Rooms, as project manager. The team was divided into 
five critical working groups to explore issues identi¬ 
fied in the report of the Think Tank. They were as 
follows: (1) Acquisitions/Copyright, (2) Bibliographic 
Access, (3) Document Preparation and Input, (A) System 
Use, (5) Preservation. These groups rolled up their 
sleeves and attacked each issue at a level of detail 
which can best be appreciated in hindsight if one stops 
to compare later implementation with this original blue 
print. 

Copyright Considerations 

Though each of these groups tackled equally 
important facets of the pilot program, the 
Acquisitions/Copyright group faced perhaps the greatest 
challenge, as they had to work within the confines of 
the Copyright Law, which protects public performance or 
reproduction of a work without the permission of the 
copyright owner. However, like any law, it is still 
subject to interpretation, particularly if one centers 
upon the "fair use" clause. The group worked closely 
with Copyright Office staff to consider if public 
display on a terminal constitutes public performance 
and if printing multiple copies from a terminal could 
be deemed infringement. The issue of the impact of new 
technologies on the Copyright Law is large and will not 
be dealt with here. Suffice it to say that the group 
aggressively cultivated the support of the publishers, 
making them aware of the Library's desire merely to 
test the technology. Eventually, permission was 
granted to scan 72 journals (1983-1985), and an 
Advisory Group was established for continued dialogue 
between LC and the copyright community (persons 
concerned about the safeguarding of "intellectual 
property.") 

The year 1984 was pivotal for the pilot program. The 
hardware consisted of a paper scanner designed to 
handle 8 1/2 by 11 or 11 by 14 originals scanned at 300 
lines per inch, a microfiche scanner for 24x standard 
98-frame fiche, two work stations on which to perform 
the tasks of input scanning and quality review, six 
public user terminals (to be placed in the various 
reading rooms), a juke box holding up to 100 disks, two 
convenience printers (Xerox 5700), and one high-speed 
printer (Xerox 5700) for off-line batch printing. The 
hardware also included various internal mechanisms 
affording one a whole new vocabulary unique to the 
digital industry: magnetic disk drive buffers, video 
system controller, disk drive unit, terminal cluster 
controller, and compander. Basil Manns, senior systems 
engineer in ASO, was designated project manager res¬ 
ponsible for monitoring the contract with Integrated 
Automation, overseeing the installation and acceptance 
testing of the aforementioned hardware, and handling 
the linkage between ASO software and IA hardware--a 
bicoastal endeavor. After several months of initial 
testing in the fall of 1984, the hardware was accepted 
provisionally and the pilot program became 
"operational." 

The Print Operations Team had been busy picking up 
where the Print Design Team left off and began planning 


for the realities of implementation. The Team, which 
still continues to meet to develop procedures and 
resolve operational problems, consists of about twenty 
coordinators with various responsibilities related to 
both input scanning and retrieval. Also part of Lhe 
Team are the custodial division liaisons and public 
service representatives interested in how the material 
is put onto the disks and how it can best be retrieved 
by users. The Team is headed by Tamara Swora, 
Assistant Preservation Microfilming Officer, who serves 
as Print Pilot Operations Manager, and Jeff Griffith, 
Specialist in Automated Information Services (CRS) as 
Assistant Operations Manager. Input Scanning, other¬ 
wise known as creation of the data base, began late in 
Lhe fail of 1984. Shortly before this time, I came on 
board as Operations Coordinator, Lhe only person other 
than a clerical assistant, who was hired on a full-time 
basis to manage the day-to-day operation. The Opera¬ 
tions Staff consists of seventeen members of Lhe 
Preservation Microfilming Office. In addition to their 
regular job of preparing records for materials to be 
microfilmed by the Library's Photoduplication Service, 
they would now be trained to operate Lhe equipment. 
Three teams were organized and each month a new team 
rotates onto the project while Lhe remaining teams 
perform their regular PMO duties. Staff working on the 
projecL each month are responsible for document 
preparation (with many parallels to this facet of 
micrographics), input scanning and quality review, 
ultimately only "writing" acceptable images to the 
disk. Often the unsung heroes of the projecL, Lhe 
operations staff are in touch daily with Lhe technical 
"glitches" which might not come to light if they did 
not work so closely with Lhe system. 

Phase One Nears Completion 

To date we are nearing the completion of Phase I, 
which was dedicated to full hardware and software 
testing and scanning of the current events file (BIBL) 
created by staff in the Library Services Division of 
CRS. The Operations Team has worked closely with 
representatives from Library Services since they are 
mosL knowledgeable about the material and their advice 
has made a favorable impact on decisions made about 
input scanning. Approximately 2,000 articles (from the 
72 copyright-permitted journals, plus those in the 
public domain) have been written to disk thus far. The 
public service representatives have trained LC 
reference Librarians to retrieve these images from the 
disks. Having completed further retrieval testing, 
the system has been made available to the public. 

Plans are now underway for Phase II, in which 
operations staff will scan serials, manuscripts, maps, 
law material, sheet music, and other parts of Lhe 
Library's collections. (Material to be scanned was 
recommended by the Preservation Policy Committee and 
the Print Design Team). Unlike BIBL, no machine 
readable records exist for this material, and there¬ 
fore, a retrieval capability is currently being 
developed by staff in ASO. 

As one might imagine, there has been a great deal of 
interest in. the Library of Congress pilot program. 
Robert Zich, Director of Lhe Planning Office, has 
served as project manager in charge of Public 
Information. Numerous requests for Lours of Lhe 
operation have been received by his office since the 
program's inception. The operations staff who work in 
Lhe Optical Disk Operations Center (ODOC) in ASO are 
frequently called upon to demonstrate input scanning. 


42 






THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


quality review, and writing to disk. It has been said 
that ODOC is an "international fish bowl." This not 
only describes Lhe glass-enclosed environment, but the 
profile of Lhe visitors that the Library has received. 

There are several other projects remaining in the 
pilot program. Plans are underway to design Lhe Disk 
Test Facility. Under Lhe direction of the Preservation 
Office, Lhe facility will Lest the durability of Lhe 
digital disks, particularly for long-term preservation 
and achievab i 1 1 Ly. William Nugent of ASO has been 
active on the Standards Project, focusing upon the 
identification, evaluation, and documentation of 
standards adopted by LC in its Optical Disk Program, in 
order to facilitate information interchange on optical 
storage media nationally and internationally. 

Future Iss ues 

Perhaps the most recent development on the program 
has been the organization of the Future Issues Team 
under Lhe direction of Ellen Hahn. The group is 
gearing up to tackle such weighty problems as "what 
happens next?" That is, what must be considered in the 
event the pilot program evolves into a permanent part 
of the Library's operations? The pilot phase of a the 
program is scheduled to conclude late in 1986, at 
which Lime a final reporL will be issued. It should be 
apparent through this brief history of the program how 
much effort on Lhe part of LC staff has gone into both 
the planning and implementation of the pilot, with well 
over 75 people involved over the past three years. We 
are optimistic about putting this new technology to 
wider use in the future, as it potentially can solve 
many of the Library's problems, including space, 
service, access, and preservation. In its infancy in 
1982, the industry already has made dramatic improve¬ 
ments in its technology, as evidenced by the recent 
upgrading of the project hardware. The onus is now on 
the technology to live up to our expectations and on 
the Library to plan for further implementation. 

Audrey Fischer 
Preservation Office 


THE NON-PRINT PROJECT 
OF THE OPTICAL DISK PILOT PROGRAM 

For the moment, forget what you have heard about 
the Optical Disk Pilot Program—especially things like 
gigadiscs and jukeboxes, digitization and the ODOC. You 
may think that is what Lhe Program is all about. Wrong. 
The Optical Disk Pilot Program consists of two 
projects: the print and the non-prin t (i.e., 
pictorial). And, although both projects are exploring 
Lhe questions of how optical disks help preserve 
library materials and help improve researchers' 
abilities to use library collections, the projects 
have progressed in entirely different ways. 

Differences 

The Non-Print Project is much smaller in scale (and 
cost) than the Print Project—only a handful of people 
have been directly and continuously involved in it, and 
only a modest number of disks have been made. In 
addition, disk production and the resulting disks are 


completely different from those being made in the Print 
Project, the schedule has been totally different, and 
off-the-shelf equipment and currently available 
technology are being used. Just like the Print 
Project, the technical aspects of planning and making 
disks have presented an enormous challenge, but most 
Non-Print Project time and effort have been devoted to 
the intellectual challenge of access and retrieval. 

Beginnings 

In December 1982, the Prints and Photographs 
Division (P&P) and the Motion Picture, Broadcasting 
and Recorded Sound Division (M/B/RS) found out that 
they would be participating in the Optical Disk Pilot 
Program. Many of us had little or no idea of what 
videodisks were, much less what they could do for us. 
Since the Library was using off-the-shelf equipment, 
the making of disks could occur immediately; indeed, 
Sony Corporation of America already had subcontracted 
with photographers to film collections for the 
videodisks beginning in January! The project was 
suddenly in motion, and for the last two-and-a-ha1f 
years we have been frustrated and stimulated, dis¬ 
couraged and overjoyed by our leap into the 
twenty-first century. It has been an exciting 
experience. 

The Disk s 

In the Non-Print Project, visual media have been 
put on analog l ase r videodisks and sound recordings on 
compact digital audio disks. Three videodisks contain 
still images: 13 collections (approximately 49,000 
items) from P&P and approximately 90,000 motion picture 
publicity stills of the 1940's to the 1960's from 
M/B/RS. Three other videodisks include motion images 
from M/B/RS: seven films or segments of films with 
special color preservation problems; 19 titles from the 
turn-of-the-century paper print collection; and two CBS 
news broadcasts from the 1976 Bicentennial Fourth of 
July weekend. The compact digital audio disks offer 
two concerts recorded in the Library's Coolidge 
Auditorium. Since computer automation is being used 
only with P&P's still image disks, this article will 
confine itself to that portion of the Non-Print 
Project. 

P&P's Collect ions 

The Prints and Photographs Division has custody of 
some 12 million items: original photographs, negatives, 
fine prints, historical prints, posters, and artistic, 
documentary, and architectural drawings. They 
represent all periods and subjects. Researchers (now 
numbering more than 800 per month) attest to the fact 
that pictures are being used increasingly, not only as 
illustrations in books and for pure pleasure, but also 
as evidential documents to supplement and complement 
other primary research material in social, political, 
and cultural studies. 

You must realize that P&P still operates with a 
totally manual control and access system (at least 
until Visual Materials Online is implemented). This is 
a considerable handicap when we are confronted with the 
high demand for our collections. Preservation, 
collections management, and security considerations 
oblige researchers to approach the material indirectly 
through card catalogs and the collective memory of the 
staff. Use statistics alone justify automation of this 
access. 


43 










THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


Us ing Pietures_in Researc h 

But, an additional factor makes automation an 
incomplete solution: language ultimately lacks the 
words to describe pictures precisely and to interpret 
what they say; the images conjured up from verbal 
descriptions can be confirmed only by calling for the 
pictures themselves. Then, even a glance might suffice 
to prove them appropriate or not. Automation will 
result in more verbal records being available for the 
researcher, but will strain our desires to preserve and 
protect our collections even more. 

Microforms of pictorial materials are somewhat 
disappointing, especially considering the cost and 
labor necessary to create them. They are awkward to 
handle and require various kinds of equipment for 
viewing. Image quality, at first usually quite good, 
deteriorates quickly as the microform is scratched and 
fingermarked from frequent use. Especially frustrating 
is the lack of rapid, random access. 

Enter the videodisk. The analog laser videodisk 
offers the same preservation advantages of other 
microformats: it reduces the risk of loss, theft, and 
misfiling of original material; eliminates overhandling 
of fragile, fugitive media; guarantees an image for the 
researcher to consult even if the original is "not on 
shelf"; and allows for remote and compact storage of 
the originals in more stable temperature and humidity 
controlled environments. The videodisk has several 
other significant advantages: it is more durable and 
can be handled more easily; it is a very dense 
information storage medium for color and continuous 
tone material: up to 54,000 individual images can be 
recorded on one side of a disk; a two-sided disk can 
therefore contain over 100,000 items (in contrast, the 
representation of color and continuous Lone is 
exorbitantly expensive in digital form and takes up an 
enormous amount of space); there is truly rapid and 
random access; an image can be displayed indefinitely 
("freeze-frame") without damage to the disk or the 
image; both still and motion images can be combined in 
this one format; and disks can be link ed int erac t ively 
to c atal oging data . Clearly, the videodisk meets the 
Optical Disk Pilot Program's goals for improving 
preservation and access in ways that other microforms 
cannot. 

The Videodisk Experiment 

Nearly 49,000 images from the Prints and 
Photographs Division were included in the videodisk 
experiment in order to represent many typical 
preservation and access problems. Complete collections 
were selected so that there would be a sufficient 
amount of related material for users to conduct real 
research. Several of these collections were not 
previously available to researchers because of their 
fragile condition, difficulty in handling, or lack of 
cataloging. 

The Sony Corporation of America was contracted to 
make the 12-inch analog laser videodisks. The original 
items were first captured on individual frames of 35mm 
color motion picture film by Image Premastering 
Services, subcontracted by Sony. The photographers, 
who came to the Prints and Photographs Division to do 
Lhe filming over a ten week period, ingeniously 
designed equipment and developed procedures to do the 
job safely, quickly, and efficiently. We invested 
considerable time in gathering the material, preparing 
it for handling, and determining the correct sequence 


for filming. After review by the Division's curatorial 
staff, the film was transferred to videotape. The 
videotape "premaster" then was used to make a metal 
disk master, from which copy disks were pressed. 

Access 

Now for the matter of access. A file of captions 
for the images on the P&P videodisk did not exist. 
Given Lhe project's time limit, it was tempting to 
devise a data format and specifications that simply 
would satisfy our most immediate needs. National 
standards for cataloging original and historical 
graphics were not yet settled, and although MARC for 
Visual Materials had been drafted, the schedule for its 
implementation was unknown. The basic form and 
principles of the developing standards were clear, 
however, and the opportunity to Lest these guidelines 
and to refine and enhance them by practical application 
could not be passed up. Although the system was to be 
local and stand-alone, the conceptual links to the 
library world's communication format would pave Lhe way 
to integration into LC's mainframe computer and 
eventually to national communication systems. 

In a manner not possible when dealing with Lhe 
mainframe system, we have been able to try a variety of 
approaches to our documentation for access to the 
videodisk. The videodisk image "caption" record 
consists of fields from Lhe MARC Format, but there is a 
concentration on the controlled vocabulary access 
point, fields most useful for picture searching. They 
are structured descriptions which list, for example, 
the creator, title, date, copyright information, 
medium, reproduction copy negatives and transparencies, 
storage location, proper name and topical subjects, and 
the picture's videodisk frame number. In contrast to 
Lhe cataloging done for material not on videodisk, 
lengthy descriptions are unnecessary because the 
picture is so readily available. The powerful 
retrieval software available for micros allows us to 
reduce the number of fields so that input can proceed 
expeditiously, and the researcher can formulate Boolean 
logic search queries that combine fields and data in 
ways one cannot in Lhe mainframe system. In our case, 
we are using BRS/Search software on a Fortune 
microcomputer. 

Recor ding _Data 

To further strengthen our Lies with national 
standards, and to exercise their application in the 
area of pictorial control and retrieval, conventions 
for recording data follow existing guidelines. The 
descriptive cataloging portion of the record and name 
added entries are formulated according to AACR2 and its 
supplementary manual Graphic M a terials: R ules for 

Descr ibin g Origin al_It ems and Histor ical Collections. 

Proper name headings are searched in the Name Authority 
File or, when necessary, are established by us accord¬ 
ing to AACR2, LC Rule Interpretations, and Lhe Subject 
Cataloging Manual. Topical headings are drawn from the 
Division's Th esaurus for Gr aph ic Materials , which will 
be published later this year. (All of this, of course, 
gives us experience that will help us when we start to 
use Visual Materials Online.) 

Linking th e System 

The last refinement to the system is to create an 
actual link between the microcomputer and the 
videodisk. After finding one or more relevant captions 
in a data search, this interface will enable the user 


44 








THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


to press a function key to bring up the matching 
image(s) on the video monitor. Because the pictures on 
the videodisk were filmed as collections and in logical 
sequence within them, the researcher also can simply 
browse through the images on the videodisk and press 
another function key to retrieve the matching 
caption(s). At last, simultaneous access to images and 
data will be achieved! 

We actually contemplate a "two-tiered" system. Full 
MARC records representing whole collections and 
discrete units within collections will be input into 
MUMS using Visual Materials Online. Thus, the public 
will have pointers to pictorial collections as they 
search for books and other bibliographic formats on 
terminals throughout the Library. They then can search 
the microcomputer/videodisk database in P&P just as 
they would a book's index for a more detailed approach. 

The videodisk has been available in the P&P Reading 
Room since June 1984. Three professional catalogers 
(the Division otherwise has only one full-time 
cataloger) and a library technician were hired in July 
1984 to prepare the database. A terminal for caption 
searching was placed next to the videodisk unit in 
March 1985. By the end of June 1986, there will be 
nearly 10,000 records in the database. The interface 
between the micro and videodisk is expected later this 
summer. 

The Optical Disk Non-Print Pilot Program has 
already proven to be a distinct success: we have a 
product that is useful to both staff and public. Every 
day we have new thoughts, new strategies, and plans 
that we now know could become reality. It has been a 
period in which imagination has been combined with 
experience to result in far more than we had ever 
dreamed possible. We have had the satisfaction of 
attacking the interrelated problems of preservation, 
collections management, access, and security-over¬ 
whelming in the Library's divisions holding pictorial 
materials—in a comprehensive way. If support of this 
program continues, we can throw off the yoke of the 
manual, indirect system of access. Hyperbole, you say? 
Well, seeing is believing. 

Elisabeth Betz Parker 

Prints and Photographs Division 


THE FUTURE IS NOW 

One of the reasons that the Future Issues Team of 
the Optical Disk Pilot Program was delayed in getting 
started was the enormity of the charge. Where do you 
start when the Deputy Librarian says, "Your job is to 
identify all the implications of this technology for 
the future of the Library of Congress and to make 
recommendations for how it should be incorporated into 
the Library's operations." Whew!! Just a few questions 
come to mind. Like: 


Will the system go into hiatus at the end of the 
pilot? Will it be continued at a minimal level of 
effort? Will we continue to input materials? If so, 
will we continue to purchase extra subscriptions for 
the purpose? Will we continue to use what has 
already been input? What and how shall we 
communicate to copyright holders for transition from 
pilot to production? Who will be in charge of the 
system while it is in transition from pilot to 
production? Should another matrix be established? 

How will the system be managed? Who will be 
responsible for management of the disks? What are 
the implications for custodial divisions? Will user 
stations be dispersed among reading rooms? Will 
they be centralized? How will materials be 
cataloged? Will a new cataloging division be 
needed? 

Who will decide what will be put onto disk and what 
priorities will be established? When disks are 
available commercially, what should our acquisition 
policies be? What means of acquisition should be 
employed, e.g., copyright deposits, purchase? 
Should materials be retained in more than one 
format? If items are available in full text 
databases, should they also be put onto disk? What 
effect will copyright considerations have on the 
acquisition/selection policy? 

What will be considered basic service, i.e., that 
which should be offered to the public without 
charge, and what will be enhanced service? To what 
extent will the Library subsidize costs, either 
printing costs or royalty payments? Should we lend 
disks or portions of disks? Should we copy 
articles, chapters, full documents, etc.? What 
charges should we apply? Who will bear 
telecommunications costs? Should we sell or merely 
lend the copies? Should we sell disks or portions 
of disks? How should fees be determined, both cost 
recovery and royalty? What provisions should we 
make for remote access? What needs to be done to 
obtain legal authority to collect royalty or other 
use fees from the public if this is necessary? Will 
changes to the copyright law be required? What role 
will interests outside the Library play in making 
these determinations? 

What form of bibliographic control should be used? 
How should the materials be indexed? What automated 
indexes should be acquired, and how should they be 
linked to the optical disk system? Shall we develop 
our own software, or purchase software packages? 

Will optical disk really serve as an archival 
preservation format? How will we accomplish 
long-term testing for preservation purposes? Will 
optical disk co-exist with microforraing or will it 
replace it? How will the optical disk efforts 
relate to DEZ efforts? 

What is the cost of putting material on optical 
disk as opposed to putting it on film or not 
converting it at all? What impact will this 
technology have on the Library's future space 
requirements, materials handling and delivery staff 
needs, collections maintenance, preservation, and 
replacement costs? How well does the optical disk 
technology meet LC's service needs and objectives? 
What alternative approaches should be investigated 
for comparison? 


45 




THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


How much equipment will be tfeeded? What are the 
budget implications for full-scale production? How 
much staff will be required and at what levels, for 
all functions, e.g., acquisition, bibliographic and 
technical processing, systems support, public 
service staff, and preservation testing staff? 

What new standards are needed? What role will LC 
play in seeking their establishment? Will 
commercially available disks meet our own standards? 
Can oversized material be displayed and sections 
enlarged for easy viewing? How can the digital and 
analog systems be linked? 

How will the Library interact with the private 
sector initiatives (both for profit and not for 
profit) in optical disk publishing? Will we en¬ 
courage through technology sharing? Through 
equipment sharing? Through buying disks? What about 
our interactions with other countries, governments, 
libraries, profit ventures? 

To begin to address these questions, the Future 
Issues Team, a group of high-level managers from 
throughout the Library, began meeting in June. After 
several months of deliberating, we have grouped the 
issues into four major categories, divided into 
committees, mapped out goals and objectives, and 
started to define task elements and resources required 
to produce a report by the end of 1986. John Finzi, 
Collections Development Office, chairs the 
Management/Policy Concerns committee; Lucia Rather, 
Processing Services, chairs the Library Operations 
Committee, assisted by Robert Zich, Planning Office; 
Winston Tabb, Copyright Office, chairs the External 
Relations committee; and Herb Becker, Automated Systems 
Office, chairs the Technology committee. 

The challenge to this group—and, indeed, the whole 
Library-remains enormous. But the benefits offered by 
this technology are even more enormous, and we must 
have a plan to take advantage of them, or we risk being 
left behind, mired in the increasingly large problems 
of storage, access, and preservation of our vast 
collections. To paraphrase Pogo, "We have met the 
future, and it is now!" 

Ellen Z. Hahn 

General Reading Rooms Division 


COMPUTER-READABLE COLLECTIONS 

There is an increasing amount of literature 
published, for which access is through a computer. 
Educational, science, and business tools, juvenile 
literature, and large databases of social science data 
are available now, sometimes exclusively in 
computer-readable formats. The Library of Congress 
began to tackle the problems of providing access to 
these materials in 1982 when the Ad Hoc Committee on 
Selection Policy for Machine-Readable Publications was 
formed. This committee issued a report which defines 
the scope of the acquisition policy, the selection 
criteria for materials containing textual information, 
and the selection criteria for software. The policy 
guidelines adhere to existing philosophical principles 


of collection development. The Library will add or 
reject material for its collections on the basis of 
content, treatment, level, etc., not. format. For 
example, ordinarily the Library will not select for 
inclusion into the computer-readable collections 
computer games or juvenile educational programs, just 
as it rejects high school textbooks and crosswork 
puzzles. 

Task Force Formed 

In late 1984 the Machine-Readable Collections Task 
Force was appointed to investigate the implications of 
acquiring, storing, and servicing machine-readable 
materials. The committee, which had representatives 
from all departments of ( the Library, made 
recommendations in four major areas: acquisitions, 
bibliographic control, service, and the establishment 
of a computer-readable collections reading room. The 
major recommendation concerning acquisitions involves 
amending the present copyright regulation so that 
software is deposited in its original format, instead 
of the "eye-readable" form now required by law. 
Producing access to online commercial databases and 
non-copyrighted databases, e.g., NTIS also is seen as 
important. 

In order to make full use of computer-readable 
acquisitions, the Processing Department must be given 
the resources to give the collections full 
bibliographic control, and many service issues raised 
by the Task Force need to be resolved. Another 
important consideration is how to maintain an adequate 
level of security for the machines and software which 
are needed to provide access to these new collections. 


Pilot Reading Room Recommended 

The report's final recommendation, the 
establishment to a pilot computer-readable collections 
reading room—an "electroform" reading room—is perhaps 
the most far reaching. The reading room will be 
modeled after others in the Library which are organized 
around the format of the materials, rather than the 
subject matter, e.g., Prints and Photographs, Motion 
Picture and Television, and Microform Reading Rooms. 
Establishing a pilot reading room is an important first 
step because the equipment and materials to be housed 
are expensive and delicate. A pilot reading room will 
help us learn about software security and hardware 
maintenance. 

In late 1985 William J. Welsh, Deputy Librarian of 
Congress, approved the Task Force Report and charged 
the Office of Planning and Development and department 
liaisons with the responsibility for directing its 
implementation. Although the group has just begun its 
work, the building of the foundation needed for the 
implementation of the Task Force's recommendations has 
started. Processing Services has begun work on MUMS 
MRDF (Machine-Readable Data File), so that these 
materials can be cataloged. The CIP division has 
spoken to several software publishers who have agreed 
to participate in a pilot CIP program during late 1986 
and early 1987. Other publishers will be contacted 
closer to the beginning of the project. The Research 
Services Department has begun to investigate possible 
locations for the pilot reading room, and the Copyright 
Office has planned strategy for making the necessary 
changes to the copyright regulation. 


46 





THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


The size of the Library of Congress sometimes 
inhibits the development of new facilities and 
services, but it is the size which also will help to 
build this facility and its collections into a rich, 
diverse research tool. With the continued 
proliferation of publications in computer-readable 
form, we can expect the demand for these materials to 
grow. The project we have now begun will permit us to 
meet the challenges of acquiring, storing, and 
servicing these collections. 

Victoria Reich 
Planning Office 


COPYRIGHT ENTERS THE INFORMATION AGE 

When I was asked to write about the ways that new 
technologies are affecting the Copyright Office, I 
thought first of a list: 

computer programs 

machine-readable data bases 

video games 

compact digital discs 

cable television programming 

ROMS — read only memory computer chips 

semiconductor chips 

All of these high-tech materials have troubled the 
still waters of the Copyright Office during the last 
few years and will continue to trouble them for many 
more. The high-tech nature of copyright is a surprise 
to many people who think of the Copyright Office as an 
old-fashioned place. They expect to see waist-coated 
gentlemen and women plying quill pens to maintain meti¬ 
culous records of copyright registrations. 

Indeed, those records are meticulously kept, but 
the scratchings of quill pens have been replaced by the 
humming and beeps of terminals as Copyright Office 
employees translate the prosaic details of half a 
million copyright registrations annually into computer 
languages. As revealed by the list above, there is no 
longer any musty air to the issues that Copyright 
Office staffers confront. 

To help understand this high-tech age, I decided to 
explore why the Copyright Office now seems to be on the 
cutting edge of new technologies and why it is good 
that it is. There are three parts to the why: 1) the 
extraordinary growth in information technologies; 2) 
the arrival of the Information Age itself; 3) the 
strength and elasticity of our copyright law. 

Gro wth 

Rapid advances in communication and computer 
technology have changed everything about the way we 
learn, communicate, and entertain ourselves. According 
to a report released in 1982 by the Office of 
Technology Assessment, major leaps forward in many 
technologies have shaped the information revolution: 
cable systems, fiber optics, satellite communications, 
digitized storage of information, broadcast 
technologies, computers, storage technologies (floppy 
disks, chips, etc.), video technology and information 
networks. 


Just how striking a change this is was assessed by 
Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Chair of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, at 
a hearing in April 1983. He said, "I believe these 
decades may be a time of transition not different from 
the time just after Gutenberg invented movable type. 
For the 50 years after Gutenberg, the world was in 
transition as new methods of creating copies were used 
...then, anyone who could get a text could reproduce 
it...today for different reasons we are facing the same 
issues." 


The Info r mation Age 

In December 1984 the Copyright Office issued a 
report which pointed to the arrival of such an 
information age. The report, entitled "The Growth and 
Size of the Copyright-Related Industries," noted that 
the industries such as book and music publishing, audio 
and video recording, broadcasting, advertising, 
computer software production, and the motion picture 
industries are fast overtaking heavy industries in the 
United States. The report stated, "During the last two 
decades the copyright industries in size surpassed 
farming, automobile manufacturing, and now rank second 
behind only the medical health industry." 


Strength o f C 


Another "why" of the burgeoning is the existence of 
our strong and elastic copyright law. Copyright, which 
was in its origins an instrument of repression, is now 
an instrument of freedom. As former Register of 
Copyrights David Ladd pointed out in his Brace Memorial 
Lecture on The C on cept of H a rm in Copyright , "The 
marketplace of ideas which the First Amendment nurtures 
is essentially a copyright marketplace." He added, 
"Copyright sustains not only independent, 
idiosyncratic, and iconoclastic authors, but also 
fosters daring. .. risk-taking publishers." It is the 
freedom provided by a strong copyright law that has 
encouraged U.S. creators, authors, and publishers to 
enter the Information Age with gusto. This was not 
always so. 

The 19th century provides an example of the peril 
of weak copyright laws. Before the United States 
adopted an international copyright law in 1891, U.S. 
publishers pirated books from other countries, 
especially England, making it hard for home-grown 
American authors to market their works. When Charles 
Dickens visited America in 1842, he chastised the many 
American publishers who were pirating his books. He 
told them to accept the idea of international copyright 
"first, because it is justice; secondly, because 
without it you can never have and keep a literature of 
your own." After the U.S. adopted a strong 
international copyright law, it was no longer 
profitable for U.S. publishers to pirate foreign works. 
Only then did U.S. publishers begin to print and 
nourish our own writers. 


When copyright is strong, there is an incentive to 
create. Because the 1976 Copyright Act was created with 
enough elasticity in it to protect most of the new 
high-tech forms of communication, the incentive exists 
not only for the creators of books and music but also 
for the creators of software, data bases, and digital 
discs. 


And so too has the Copyright Office proved flexible 
enough to respond creatively to each new high-tech 
development. Each time the Copyright Office meets a new 


47 





THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES 


technology, it is like introducing one's self to a 
potential friend: first a little suspicion, then a long 
chatty time to gather information, and, finally, a 
comfortable relationship. During the last four years, 
the Office has gone through all of these stages with 
the new high-tech developments and has responded 
successfully to the challenge. We set up Task Groups 
to define issues and develop policy, we wrote 
regulations, reported back to Congress, and, always, 
invented new ways of dealing with new materials. 

A sampling of four years of headlines in C opyright 
Notices shows what some of the challenges were and how 
the Office met them: 

President Jimmy Carter Signs the Computer Software 
Computer Copyright Act of 1980. (January 1981) 

The Copyright Office responded quickly. A Study 
Group on Software assessed the issues, developed 
examining practices, and wrote draft guidelines. The 
Examining Division developed a policy on whether to 
accept object or source code as an acceptable computer 
program deposit. The Office began to develop a 
regulation to cover trade secrets, often a problem with 
computer programs and to cover special relief. Finally, 
guidelines to assist in cataloging these works were 
developed. 

Copyright Office Accepts and Registers First 
Machine-Readable Data Base (April 1981) 

Registering data bases presented troubling new 
problems for the Copyright Office. For example, since 
a data base constantly changes from day to day, what 
should the identifying deposit be? Furthermore, when is 
a data base "fixed" for copyright purposes? 

In 1983 j when OCLC asked to register its 
bibliographic data base, new issues were raised: when 
is a data base "published" for copyright purposes? What 
would an adequate copyright notice on a data base be? 
The Office responded again by developing new 
regulations on deposit for data base registrations, 
developed after consultation with the industries 
involved. 

Copyright Office Registers First Video Games (1981) 

Those of us who were addicted to the sight of the 
monsters Inky, Blinky, Pinky, and Clyde gobbling up 
Pac-Man will be happy to know that those characters 
are protected by copyright against the incursions of 
Puc Man, Pucky Puck, and Munchyman. In the Copyright 
Office examiners began to learn the ins and outs of 
examining video games, looking either at the computer 
program or the audiovisual game embodied in the work. 
Because the games were often involved in litigation, 
the Office developed ways to offer speedy special 
handling. 

CABLE TV— Register of Copyrights Recommends Transition 
to Free Market for Cable (August 4, 1981) 

Although the Copyright Office has had a rocky 
relationship with its administrative functions in 
regard to cable television, our own Licensing Division 
quietly goes about its business of collecting and 
accounting for royalties for the copyright owners of 
programs transmitted by cable operators. The Office 
also works and reworks its regulations, responding to 


the sometimes conflicting decisions of Congress, the 
Federal Communications Commission, the Copyright 
Royalty Tribunal, and the Courts. 

Copyright Office Testifies as Senate Considers Off-Air 
Taping (May 1982) 

Videorecorders (VCR'S) caused much furor when the 
Betamax case arose. After University City Studios and 
Walt Disney Productions sued Sony for copyright 
infringement, cartoons and editorials created visions 
of video police raiding our homes to grab unauthorized 
copies taped off the air. The Copyright Office 
developed testimony to present at hearings as Congress 
considered whether there should be royalties on blank 
video and audio tapes royalties to compensate copyright 
owners for the use of their works. But visions of video 
police ended when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 
January that time-shifting programs was "fair use." 

Copyright Office Reports to Congress on Libraries and 
Photocopying (January 1983) 

In eight enormous volumes submitted to Congress in 
January 1983, the Copyright Office tried to provide 
guidance to librarians on the heretofore fuzzy issue of 
photocopying practices in libraries. The writers of 
the report aimed at balancing the admirable concern of 
librarians for giving optimal service to users with the 
equally authentic need to preserve the incentives and 
profits of the creators of the printed words being 
photocopied. 

SENATE HOLDS FIRST HEARINGS ON THE SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP 
ACT OF 1983 (May 1983) 

These hearings led to the creation of an entirely 
new form of intellectual property protection 
—protection for mask works fixed in the integrated 
circuits known as semiconductor chips. This protection 
was steered away from being classified as "copyright," 
and into a new form of federal statutory protection. 
The Office of the General Counsel prevailed and kept 
copyright itself better limited to the protecting 
literary works, musical works, dramatic works, 
pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, motion 
pictures and sound recordings. The Copyright Office now 

administers the Act—several staffers daily work on the 
issues involved with registering the mask works of chip 
designs. 

And so it goes. These are only a few of the 
headlines that describe the constant high-tech crises 
in the Copyright Office. But the Office is always up to 
the challenge—we have learned to love high-tech. It's 
an exciting time to be here. 

Susan A. Robinson 
Copyright Office 


48 




MISCELLANY 


MICROCOMPUTERS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 


Nineteen eighty-five was the year of the 
microcomputer in the Congressional Research Service. 
First introduced in January, by the end of the year 
there were nearly 100 micros in use among CRS' 850 
employees; we expect at least three times as many in 
the future. For the present, primary emphasis is 
being placed on improving and speeding up analysis. 
Within the next few years, however, CRS probably will 
rely on microcomputers for word processing also. 

The introduction of microcomputers began only after 
two years of exploratory work and preparation by 
committees of potential CRS users assisted by experts 
from the Office of Automated Information Services (AIS) 
and occasionally by outside contractors. Energetic 
efforts have been made to coordinate certain necessary 
adjuncts, such as training on machines and software. 

Preliminary Work 

In December, 1982 then CRS Director Gilbert Gude 
appointed an exploratory committee composed of 
management personnel, including some computer buffs, 
other potential users, and the coordinator of AIS to 
survey the terrain to be traversed in moving toward the 
microcomputer era. Gude deliberately placed the users 
in a central role in mapping this course so that their 
perspectives would be represented directly in the 
decision-making process. After an initial orientation, 
the exploratory committee sought assistance from 
outside consultants. 


In August, 1983 a request for proposals to assist 
in formulating a plan for introducing microcomputers 
was issued. In September Arthur Young Associates was 
selected as the contractor from among three bidders. 
The company interviewed the chiefs of CRS' nine 
divisions and heads of its administrative offices as 
well as a sizable sample of staff members throughout 
CRS. Through this process a detailed appraisal of 
machine needs with extensive documentation on potential 
uses was made. 


The Arthur Young report concluded that CRS should 
install about 200 microcomputers during the next three 
years and that an experiment be conducted during the 
first year, linking some machines in local-area 
networks to several terminals, using one central 
processing unit, accessing common data and software, 
and communicating with each other. 


The CRS committee accepted most of the Arthur Young 
recommendations in principle. Implementation was 
delayed until fiscal year 1985 to assure compliance 
with the Library's ADP planning process. CRS also 
deferred the networking experiment until at least the 
second year because of the underdeveloped state of 
software for multiuser systems, the greater need for 
maintenance and technical assistance for the more 
complex technology, and the fact that CRS analysts 
typically work independently rather than in teams. 


Introduction of Machines 

Selection of the equipment was complicated by the 
fact that microcomputer technology and software is 
leapfrogging forward in capability and falling back in 
price. Working in close collaboration with the 
Library's Automated Systems Office (ASO), in November 


1984 CRS placed orders for 37 Compaq Deskpros (Model 
II) and 25 IBM-AT ("advanced technology") machines, the 
latter to be equipped with hard disks for large-scale 
computing and storage capacity. The IBM-AT, which had 
just become available, represents a giant step forward 
in speed and capability, but at the price of about 
$4,500 it costs roughly 50% more than the Compaq 
Diskpro, and its capacity is not needed for many uses 
in CRS. 

Delivery of all machines was expected in early 
1985, and, in fact, the Compaqs were delivered on 
schedule and distributed to users. IBM, however, 
encountered problems in meeting its delivery schedule 
for the AT's, apparently because of difficulties in 
locating suppliers of hard disks. Delivery was delayed 
for nearly five months; the first AT's were received in 
June. 

Strategies in Introducing New Technology 

Some division chiefs feel that microcomputer 
technology can be introduced most effectively by 
providing as many machines as possible to analysts, 
with the ideal being one machine for one person. While 
this density is not quickly attainable under today's 
budget constraints, the strategy rests on the belief 
that uninterrupted access is necessary to induce 
analysts to invest the time to learn to use this 
powerful new technology to the optimum extent. Seeing 
many colleagues experimenting with new techniques also 
stimulate staff to acquire computer skills and provide 
a good environment for information exchange. This 
could be referred to as the "critical-mass theory" of 
technology introduction. 

Other divisions adopted a more conservative 
approach, defining machine needs in terms of current 
requirements and realistic growth in usage. Staff 
members are enrolled for training either because they 
need it for current work or because a job is being 
assigned that can be done better using a computer. On 
the principle that what is not practiced is soon 
forgotten, some managers believe that training for 
which no near-term use is evident probably will not pay 
off. 


The chief of one CRS division, who has experience 
in managing the introduction of new technologies, 
proposed to convert his division entirely to 
microcomputers, including its word-processing 
operations. This anticipates a change that will be 
required throughout the Service by 1987, when the 
availability of spare parts and service for CRS' 
present word processors will decline. This division is 
providing a pilot test for the Service in the wholesale 
change to microcomputer technology by training its 
support staff to work on microcomputers and procuring 
high-speed, laser-jet printers for text production. 

Providing Management Oversight 

As microcomputers were becoming a reality in CRS, 
Gude restructured the exploratory committee into a 
management committee which included representatives of 
each division, Che administrative offices, and AIS. the 
purpose of this change is to assure that the management 
of each unit has a voice and that management is 
informed of issues and actions. The committee also 
serves as a forum for regular communication among the 
users and the automation experts in AIS. Among the 
concerns of this group have been training, copyright 
observance, and security. 


49 








MISCELLANY 


Tra ining. Of some 600 research staff and 250 
support personnel in CRS, only about 100 had relevant 
prior experience with computers. It was critical to 
begin training concurrently at the time of delivery of 
the machines. 

It was with a sense of urgency, therefore, that a 
subgroup of the Management Committee, assisted by AIS 
staff, issued a request for contractor proposals for 
development of a training program. In the process this 
group had to decide which software programs would be 
supported with formal training and troubleshooting 
services. The training was to cover all major 
functions of microcomputers in CRS: spreadsheets 
(i.e., entry and manipulation of numerical data); 
data-base management (manipulation of lists and files); 
word processing (text preparation); and graphics. They 
decided to develop and test courses in several of the 
most popular programs in these fields: LOTUS 1-2-3, 
SuperCalcl11, dBase III, and WordPerfect. (In 
addition, courses are given in microcomputer software 
designed especially for users of Lexitron/Raytheon word 
processors.) An introductory course on the 
microcomputers' Disk Operating System (DOS) is offered 
to familiarize employees with the basic functions of 
the new machines. 

The contract for developing and testing a training 
program was awarded to WordPro, Inc., a firm in 
Rockville, Maryland. At LC WordPro has taught courses 
and seminars for users within every CRS division. 

More recently, requests have been made by employees 
for training in specialized software for drawing charts 
and graphs and for communication with outside data 
bases and mainframe computers. The Management 
Committee with the help of CRS automation experts has 
chosen packages for which training and troubleshooting 
help will be provided. 

The proliferation of software knowledge also has 
proceeded informally among computer users. It is 
assisted by a Microcomputer Users' Group, which meets 
periodically for information exchange, demonstrations, 
and gatherings of subgroups with specialized common 
interests. The User's Group also circulates an 
informative newsletter. 

Copy right Ob ser vance. Most computer software is 
copyrighted and sold under licensing agreements that 
limit or prohibit copying and may restrict usage to a 
single machine. The prices of some programs — $600 or 
more--could pose temptations to violate the 
restrictions for employees who have machines at home or 
even for those who need multiple copies at the office. 
The Library of Congress, which administers the 
copyright statutes through the Copyright Office, mu«t 
be especially scrupulous in observing those laws. 

In a memorandum to all employees, Gude laid down an 
unambiguous policy regarding copyright observance. An 
accompanying series of questions and answers emphasized 
that illicit copying is a crime and that individuals as 
well as the institution could be sued or prosecuted for 
infractions. All software is issued to individuals 
with the licensing agreements attached; copies of 
licensing agreements are filed in computer rooms; and, 
tables summarizing provisions of agreements for popular 
software are posted. 

Machine and Software Security . In the summer of 
1984, a new IBM personal computer, plus printer and 
manuals belonging to a contractor disappeared from a 


locked office of the Madison Building over a weekend. 
In light of this occurrence, the Management Committee 
is concerned that adequate security be provided both 
for the microcomputers and their peripheral equipment, 
as well as for software. 

On an interim basis, this concern has been assuaged 
by providing locked overnight storage with restricted 
access. In the longer run high-value equipment will be 
anchored to its furniture to make removal from the 
premises difficult. Software is protected by secured 
storage when not in use, and access and accountability 
are provided by sign-out systems. 

What Advances Do Microcomputers Make Possible ? 

The primary motivation for introducing 
microcomputers is to enhance the analytical 
capabilities and productivity of the CRS professional 
staff. Although analysts also use the machines for 
drafting text, word processing has not been a primary 
consideration. Existing equipment for word processing 
is adequate in most parts of CRS. 

Using the new machines, CRS analysts can array and 
manipulate numbers and other date for many purposes. 
Budget analysts can tabulate appropriations and update 
and project them into the future almost instantaneously 
by using alternative assumptions. Economists download 
elements of the national income and product accounts 
automatically by telephone from databases on computers 
in other cities, calculate growth rates and 
relationships and project them into the future. 
Analysts test for statistical relationships among data 
and calculate regression equations. For both analysis 
and reports, the computers produce graphs (line, bar or 
pie charts) to make data relationships more readily 
visible. Other analysts can maintain and sort other 
types of databases. For example, a list of several 
hundred Nobel Prize winners was arrayed alternatively 
by nationality of birth, location of education, 
location of prize winning work, discipline, and so on. 
Programming for their own applications, researchers can 
construct analytical models. One demonstrated recently 
deals with relationships between the U.S. and Soviet 
strategic arsenals under various assumptions about 
weapons capabilities and arms control restrictions. 

Analysts will be able to obtain information from 
many data bases around the country—economic data, 
political survey data, environmental and legal 
information—for further processing. The 

microcomputers also will be able to access the 
Library's automated book files, such as MUMS and 
SCORPIO. 

While word processing ranks behind analysis in 
priority, analysts are being trained to draft text on 
the new machines. To enable support staff to make 
revisions and to produce final copy on the Raytheon 
word processors, material now is transferred routinely 
from microcomputer disks to Raytheon disks by linking 
the machines via "null model" cable. In the course of 
the next few years, as the Raytheons are phased out and 
CRS converts completely to microcomputers, all support 
staff will be trained on the new systems. 

Future I ssues 

With the arrival of the IBM AT's, CRS is entering a 
new era of computing power which will expand 
possibilities for analysts in ways they have not 
anticipated. New problems for management to solve 


50 







MISCELLANY 


will include security for these high-value machines, 
training to use the systems for organizing materials in 
large-volume hard-disk storage and permitting access, 
while protecting against unauthorized or inadvertent 
tampering. 

Finally, the Management Committee has established a 
Subcommittee on Local Area Networking to examine the 
complex issues of transmitting voice, data and image 
communications among computers, including transmissions 
to Congressional offices. This technology will require 
not only selection of the most suitable equipment and 
software for the job, but also finding safeguards to 
assure adequate review and quality control for CRS work 
going to the Congress. 

William A. Cox 

Congressional Research Service 


INQUIRY STATUS AND INFORMATION SYSTEM (ISIS) 

The Congressional Research Service provides 
Congress with the most reliable and timely analysis and 
research possible; the automation system which gives 
the status of CRS' workload is ISIS —Inquiry Status 
and Information System. 


With the expansion of CRS following the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970, the need for an automated 
system became evident. As CRS grew, so did the number 
of Congressional requests. There was concern that work 
might be unreported and that the statistics might not 
accurately account for volume or types of responses. 
Also, the method used for tracking and identifying the 
status of requests was becoming more difficult to 
maintain. Further, CRS needed reliable statistical 
data for future budget, program, and personnel 
planning, and management needed to know the status of 
the backlog and deadlines for completion of responses. 
Finally, it was important to have immediate access to 
the status of an inquiry when a Congressional office 
called to check on the progress of an inquiry or to 
modify the request. 


System Needs 

After several years of analyses and experiments 
with small-scale automated systems, CRS turned to the 
Library's Information Systems Office (now the Automated 
Systems Office — ASO) in 1976 to develop a system that 
would meet the following goals: 

"transmit requests to the appropriate action point; 
"determine the status of inquiries in response to 
the hundreds of call-backs received each week; 

"trace trends in information and research 
requirements of the Congress; 

"maintain an appropriately balanced staff with the 
necessary subject expertise to keep pace with the 
changing concerns of Congress; 

"provide the data necessary to inform our oversight 
committees of CRS services to the Congress, projected 
future needs, and added resources CRS requires to 
fulfill those needs; 

"provide current reports of pending workload to 
division and section managers so that appropriate and 
efficient assignments can be made to meet client 
deadlines. 


Pr eparation and Imp lemen tati on 


To prepare for automation, CRS designed new forms, 
revised division/section/unit codes, and expanded the 
codes which identify the Congressional requesters. The 
codes for "types" and "forms" of response were also 
received. The type-of-response code is a key element 
in identifying CRS services and products, and the 
revision of these codes received major planning 
attention. All revisions went into effect in January 
1978, and during the next four months, CRS addressed 
and resolved any problems connected with them. 

In April 1978, ISIS was implemented and made 
accessible through terminals in the Inquiry Section. 
Because of the limited number of terminals, they were 
shared by two staffs: inquiry staff during the day and 
the newly-hired production staff at night. After the 
move to the Madison Building in 1980, there were enough 


terminal 

s to be 

placed in 

both the Inquiry and 

ISIS 

sect ions 

• 





The 

ISIS pi 

:oduc tion 

system 

operates on a 

Data 

General 

Eclipse 

; C/36 0 m 

inicorap 

u ter. Besides 

th e 

on-line 

system, 

there is a 

back-up 

system which is 

also 

used for 

program 

developrae 

nt and 

testing. CRS s 

ta f f 


use Data General Model 6053 video display terminals. 
These terminals are "hard wired" -- accessed directly 
to the minicomputer rather than through a leased 
telephone line. Access is available only to authorized 
users who enter a confidential system of passwords. 
ISIS is not tied in with SCORPIO or any other system 
because, consistent with CRS confidentiality 
requirements, measures must be taken to protect the 
security of data. Flexibility and growth limitations 
are imposed by these necessary security conditions. 


Current on-line functions that can be performed by 
authorized CRS staff include the following: enter and 
update Congressional inquiries in fanfold format; enter 
completed inquiry data; enter pending major projects; 
enter completed major project data; enter and complete 
Issue Brief, CRS Report, Reading Room/Reference Center, 
and telephone-only requests (each of these uses 
different screen formats); enter, update, and display 
requester file; enter, update, and display divisional 
information; review pending fanfolds; search for 
inquiries by requester and date range; display 
"call-back" messages; check status of inquiries; 
display completed data; print fanfolds locally and 
remotely to divisions. 

The Process 

Reference and research requests received in the 
Inquiry Section are entered directly into ISIS and 
printed on a "fanfold." These records will remain in 
the system as pending until the request is completed, 
the cleared copy of the fanfold is forwarded to the 
ISIS section, and the cleared information is entered 
into ISIS. All other requests (direct division 
receipt, telephone only, Issue Brief, CRS Report, and 
Reading Room/Reference) are entered by the ISIS Section 
after completion. The divisions send completed records 
to the ISIS Section daily and the turn-around time for 
these to be completed is one day. 

On a regular basis (weekly, monthly, quarterly) 
reports are run by ASO to provide information to 
management. These reports which are available for CRS 
as a whole and by division and section include total 
cumulative number of responses and hours spent on 
those responses, types of responses, breakdown by 


51 








MISCELLANY 


request and elapsed time. Other reports list all 
inquiries indicated as pending within a division. 
Reports are produced to reflect the status of major 
projects —major research usually taking a minimum of 
80 hours of research time. These reports provide titles 
of projects pending or completed; research hours 
reported each month; initiation date; division(s) 
involved. Major project statistical reports are broken 
down by Member/committee/anticipatory categories; 
interdivisional participation; and number of projects 
initiated, in progress, cancelled, or completed during 
the reported period. 

The data entered and the reports derived from ISIS 
concern official Congressional work. ISIS is not a 
researcher time-accounting or cost-accounting system; 
rather, it reports CRS workload in response to or in 
anticipation of Congressional requests. To give an idea 
of volume, CRS completed 442,247 Congressional requests 
in FY'84. 


Through ISIS, CRS continually strives to provide a 
more sophisticated management information system within 
a secured minicomputer system. A set of development 
priorities has been established and, with ASO, ISIS 
management is developing the following: 


Major project subsystem redesign--to provide a 
special automated system to manage the intricate 
process of major project reporting and counting. 


On-line display facility--to provide one video 
display terminal to each division and allow division 
managers direct access to the on-line display of 
pending requests and to information relating to the 
status of requests; 

Division assignment capability--to allow division 
managers to enter section assignment on-line so that 
location and status can be easily determined; 

On-line editing—to perform extensive on-line 
validation of data; 


On-line subject directory--to automate the 
extensive listing of subject areas with their 
appropriate CRS referrals. 

Brenda Wesner 

Congressional Research Service 


ELECTRONIC MAIL AND ITS OSES 

Electronic mail is being used by staff members in 
all departments of the Library of Congress. Although 
it does not replace the telephone or the written 
memorandum form, it does facilitate the communication 
between two or more individuals and ensures that 
accurate messages are received as intended. It has 
introduced a new part of office automation to the 
Library. 


The Library uses eMAIL from ADR (Applied Data 
Research, Inc.) and has established a network of users 
throughout its three Capitol Hill buildings as well as 
the Taylor Street Annex, the Navy Yard, and Library 
reading rooms maintained by the Congressional Research 
Service in the House and Senate Office Buildings. eMAIL 
is available to anyone with intra- and/or 
interdepartmental interests and responsibilities. It 
is accessed via terminals connected to the Library's 
main computer located in the Automated Systems Office 
in the James Madison Memorial Building. A staff member 
may request an account from the department automation 
liaison, and when an account has been approved and 
opened, the individual establishes a personal password 
to ensure confidentiality of mail to and from his or 
her electronic mailbox. 


The (organization network in the Library of Congress 
currently contains more than 800 names of individuals 
and sub-networks which have been defined as individual 
addressees. Depending on the type of terminal 
available to a user of the system, eMAIL is either a 
full screen image or one-line teletype image. 
Regardless of the terminal, however, the functions and 
capabilities are the same for all users. 


Uses 


Before eMAIL was selected and installed in the 
Library, tests were performed to determine whether or 
not electronic mail was useful and, specifically, which 
of the several versions would best serve the population 
of the Library. The ADR package was chosen because of 
its versatility in doing things other than the simple 
sending and receiving of messages. Some of these 
capabilities are described below. 

Electronic Filing System 


Staff members who serve on various committees or 
who are involved in long-term projects are able to set 
up and maintain files of work and correspondence. Files 
can be set up to hold minutes of meetings, outlines of 
work, or lists of things to be done. Anyone may show 
the contents of personal files to someone else, but the 
files are accessible only if the owner wishes them to 
be. Files also can be made to hold all messages 
concerning the same subject or from the same person. 


Every file that is created has a menu made 
automatically which lists every item contained and the 
date items were accessed last. A file of items can be 
edited at any time, just as a paper draft can be, and 
finally can be sent to someone as an electronic 
message. A list of "things to do" allows people to 
remind themselves of pending work or appointments as 
often as needed or desired, at any time of the day 
chosen. 

If it is necessary or desirable to do so 
a file or messages received can be printed on 
near the user's work area. This print capabi 
added convenience, but is not the only way o 
information from the electronic network. 

Conferences 

Just as it is possible to make conference telephone 
calls, it is also possible to send messages to entire 
groups, i.e., networks, with the capability of all 
recipients being able to read every other person's 
response to the originator. This is a convenient way 
of gathering opinions and setting up meetings without 


, items in 
printers 
lity is an 
f sharing 


52 





MISCELLANY 


telephone calls back and forth. A message can be 
retained for as many days as desired by the originator, 
up to "permanent" status, so that the information is 
available whenever an individual returns to work. 

Time-Trigge r ed M ail 

Supervisors and committee chairpersons use this 
feature to remind others of obligations by pre-setting 
dates and times. This is of particular value if 
someone is going to be away from work for a period of 
time; one can write messages and reminders to 
individuals, and mail will be delivered on whichever 
day and time setting has been given. To ensure that 
mail is read and answered, or at least acknowledged 
during one's absence from work, a surrogate can be 
named. This person can then handle the absent person's 
mail as instructed, so the sender will have a response. 

Classes are being held throughout the Library to 
teach staff members how to use eMAIL and take advantage 
of its time-saving and convenience in their own 
particular jobs. 

Barbara J. Finfrock 
Automated Systems Office 


SHELFLIST SERVICE AND eMAIL 

In the fail of 1984 the Shelflist Services Unit of 
the She Iffisting Section (Subject Cataloging Division) 
began the first Library-wide application of eMAIL, 
the impetus having come from a suggestion/incentive 
award proposal by Joseph J. Keenan and William F. 
Sundwick. I discovered when the 1984 LC Intern Class 
was assigned to the Subject Cataloging Division that 
Ms. LC eMAIL was Intern Barbara J. Finfrock. Within a 
few hours Barbara and I set up preliminary procedures 
to start reference service via eMAIL. 

The Shelflist Services Unit provides location and 
copy information for books to reference librarians and 
others in the Library. In addition, we attempt to 
track down books in-process for reference staff. 

Old Procedures 

Prior to eMAIL people telephoned the Shelflist 
Service Unit. Since the assistant could not respond to 
questions without leaving the telephone and desk, i.e., 
be in two places at once, we had installed a telephone 
answering machine to record incoming requests when the 
Location Assistant was not present. Upon returning, 
the Location Assistant would listen to the tape, record 
the incoming requests, and later, attempt to contact 
the reference librarians only to find that they often 
were absent from their desks. We left messages with 
colleagues, but sometimes the messages were lost or 
never transmitted to the appropriate person. 
Additionally, at the outset of hearing a pre-recorded 
tape, many people simply hung up and did not leave a 
request. 


Developing eMAIL Procedures 

At the outset the reference librarians from the 
Loan Division served both as guinea pigs and designers 
of a workable system. Our eMAIL address was 
established as "Shelflist reference," and we started 
operations. We decided that the call number or Library 
of Congress card number (LCCN) for books-in-process 
should be indicated in the subject line of the 
electronic message. In the message text area, the 
questions "How many copies? Assignments?" were 
answered. Next, we decided to have the requesters 
call up the "send" prompt screen and implement two 
functions: 1) Set the print function, so we would 
receive a hard copy which we needed, to search the 
shelflist on-site; 2) Set the reply request function, 
so we could not ignore the request—eMAIL will not let 
a message be removed without a requested reply being 
answered. These procedures enabled us to receive 
shelflist reference requests via electronic mail; next 
we had to decide how we were going to proceed from our 
end. 

Requests for shelflist information are received on 
the same printer used in our bookpaging activity. They 
are placed on the Location Assistant's desk. The 
majority of the requests are answered within two hours. 
We set our function keys to eliminate the redundant 
keying of commands. We set function keys for inbox, 
view 1,2, etc., reply, return directed, etc. Initially, 
we established a folder for answered requests, but 
quickly discovered that we hardly ever referred back to 
answered requests and when we did, the "file 13" folder 
served our purposes. 

Soon we found that we needed to establish a way to 
identify Congressional requests of an urgent nature and 
requests for readers who could wait no more than one or 
two hours for a response. We devised a technique that 
clearly identified these items for the Location 
Assistant. 

The use of eMAIL for shelflist information quickly 
spread to the Special Search Section, Photoduplication 
Reference Service, Science and Technology Division, and 
the General Reading Rooms Division. Thus far, we have 
had a 500 percent increase in requests for information. 
We have responded to this increase by adding another 
full-time staff member. 

Quality Contro l 

Occasionally, we are unable to locate by call 
number the item in question. Since many of our users 
provide author/title information, often a quick search 
of MUMS locates the proper call number of the item 
requested. In the majority of cases, a typographical 
error was made by the original requester, although we 
also discovered errors in the online database. 
Therefore, an added benefit of this service is a sort 
of quality control of the online file. We encourage 
the reference staff to report call number discrepancies 
between the online catalog and the shelflist. 

Also, since we use our inbox as an index to 
requests requiring immediate replies, we created a file 
to hold requests that require in-depth searching, such 
as for books-in-process. Requests of this nature are 
placed in the file "permanently," that is, until we are 
able to provide a positive response to the requester. 
Thus far, we have located about 80 percent of the 
items requested within a reasonable time. We hope this 
success rate will increase with the heightened 


53 








MISCELLANY 


awareness to charge materials within the Processing 
Services Department, plus the newly implemented 
procedures for the charging of serials in the Subject 
Cataloging Division. 

Recently, we introduced another Library application 
for electronic mail. The Shelflist Services Unit has 
the responsibility for ordering books from the general 
collections and from the Law Library for the department 
staff located in the Madison Building. Staff members 
now can order materials via eMAIL provided they notify 
us and receive our instruction sheet. We make 
responses to bookpaging requests through eMAIL. 

At the present time the only drawbacks we see with 
eMAIL are that too few staff members have access to 
eMAIL, some are reluctant to use a new technology, and 
we suffer a lack of terminals within the unit. It is 
hoped that these drawbacks are merely temporary. By the 
way, if you are one who is resisting change, telephone 
reference service is still available on extension 
7-5790! 

Cynthia J. Johanson 
Subject Cataloging Division 


AUTOMATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES : 
STILL WAITING 


In the spring of 1979 the idea of producing 
bibliographies by automation sounded simple and ever so 
promising. In an often quoted report of that year, LC 
Intern Ruta Pempe asserted that "the powerful 
capabilities already developed over a decade for 
cataloging need relatively small adjustments to meet 
the requirements of producing subject bibliographies." 

Her report projected data files created by 
retrieval of machine-readable records from MUMS. These 
custom designed databases would feature online 
searching and editing. Data for analytics (articles 
from journals and essays from anthologies) would be 
input independently in a manner that was yet to be 
determined, but would probably involve some linkage to 
the container's record. The output from these working 
files could be sorted by subject tags and arranged 
alphabetically for publication in hard copy. Selection 
of newly acquired items for quarterlies or annuals 
could be made easily. At the same time online users 
could review the whole database searching by subject, 
author, title, and all the other indexed tags. An 
unedited and unpolished file could be kept 
user-confidential until ready for general search. 


For bibliographers, the prospects were 
breathtaking. No more dusty file boxes of 3 x 5 cards; 
no more hand sorting and alphabetizing; no more paper 
clips and broken rubber bands; no more fruitless 
searching for the lost item that was somehow misfiled, 
but is now desperately needed. We could create 
databases! New items found in the course of 
professional reading or deliberate searching could be 
routinely entered. Retrieval could be achieved as 
needed for a reference letter, a short list of timely 
items, or a major bibliography. 


Best of all, efficiency of publication would be 
enhanced immensely. No longer would anyone have to hand 
a stack of cards to a typist, who would prepare a list 
which then had to be proofread against the cards, 
returned for correction (which often involved erasing 
and retyping), and checked for adequacy of corrections 
made. No longer would this painstakingly produced 
typewritten list be sent on to a typesetter who would 
set the list all over again and return proofs that had 
to be checked again against the typed copy and 
sometimes against the cards. Automation would virtually 
guarantee that an item that was correct in the database 
would be correct in the finished publication. We could 
publish selected compilations with ease, while online 
access would make our materials readiLy available for 
other inhouse users. 


COMBAT Formed 

To implement the automation process, a series of 
requests and proposals was generated. Following 
distribution of the Pempe report, ASO in 1979 convened 
a working group on LC standard formats. At the time the 
focus seemed to be on COM outputs, so the committee 
took the acronymn COMBAT for "COM bibliographic 
advisory team." A subcommittee was organized to design 
output for bibliographies produced by automation. Also, 
in 1979 Sally McCallum of the Network Development 
Office wrote a draft proposal of a method for inputting 
analytics, "a set of guidelines and new fields that 
would be defined across the MARC formats to contain the 
link of the analyzed part to the item that contains 
it." 


In 1980 Research Services submitted a formal 
request to ASO for a bibliography automation project. 
This request was to "consolidate and augment current 
automation tasks relating to bibliography automation 
into one automation project." In 1981 the COMBAT 
subcommittee distributed its final report with 
recommendations for layout, indexing, and entry format 
for automated bibliographies. It also called for 
establishment of a bibliography committee and a 
revision of the LC style manual Bibliographical 
Procedures & Style (originally published in 1954 and 
reprinted in 1961). In 1981 ASO responded with a task 
definition for a "Prototype Bibliography Handbook," 
namely the Handbook of L atin American Studies. Although 
the machinery moved slowly, it appeared that things 
were finally rolling. 

Problems 


As it turned out, probably not surprisingly, the 
road to the bibliographic heavenly city was strewn with 
rocks and ashes and a few seemingly insurmountable 
boulders. It is impossible to recite these problems in 
detail, but they included the following: reluctance of 
the Processing Department to allow editing or 
manipulation of cataloging records even in files that 
were clearly independent of the original MUMS database; 
disputation about index terms and controversy over 
individual thesauri vs. LCSH for all; failure to agree 
on a method for encoding analytic data in MARC formats; 
concern for authority control and fear that respect for 
established names and subject headings might be eroded; 

distaste among bibliographers for new entry formats, 
based on AACR2 cataloging and ISBD punctuation that 
would violate many long-standing traditions; and 
technical difficulties encountered by ASO in the design 
of the requisite software, a task that had once seemed 
so straightforward. 


54 











MISCELLANY 


In 1984 ASO convened a meeting of LC personnel 
interested either peripherally or directly in 
bibliographic production. Thereafter, listening to and 
presenting a variety of reports, ASO conceded that it 
had not been able to make progress on the automation 
of bibliographic production and announced that the 
Cataloging Distribution Service was taking over the 
project. 

Achievements 

Fortunately, during those slow years of the early 
eighties staff who were actually compiling 
bibliographies or managing data bases had been learning 
some things. In a project that was independent of 
bibliographic automation, the Main Reading Room 
reference collection catalog was put into a 
machine-readable file, demonstrating that locally 
managed files could be drawn from MUMS. Data are input 
into the file from the database using the record 
number. Corrections and minor editing changes can be 
input directly into the computer via Four Phase 
terminals. The file is not accessible online; 
processing is done in batch and newly input data can 
only be viewed in printouts and diagnostics. However, 
catalogs of the database have been generated and 
published. Quarterly updated shelflists are issued to 
interested reading rooms. Online access has been long 
anticipated, but no dates are offered. 

In another small step forward GRR bibliographers 
discovered that the Composing Unit of Central Services 
is as firmly established at the forefront of technology 
as any unit in the Library and is wonderfully 
cooperative about making its services available. In 
1982 a bibliography was photocomposed by them from data 
that had been input on Lexitron tape and transfered to 
computer tape which the composing machine could read 
and spin out into text. More modern equipment now in 
place can read directly from floppy discs input at the 
Compucorp. The benefits are two-fold. We have 
good-looking copy done just the way we want it, and we 
are freed from 95 percent of the tedious and time 
consuming multiple proofreading that we used to do. 

Thanks to word processing and the composition 
capability of Central Services, bibliographic 
production in GRR is speedier than it was in the manual 
production days. We achieve a finished product more 
efficiently than we did ten years ago, but we still 
have portable file boxes and handwritten notes, and we 
still lose data. We explore creating data files on 
floppy discs, but grow discouraged. We wonder if 
microcomputers would help us if we can ever get 
microcomputers. When we hear rumors that new 
developments are coming, we listen with skepticism oorn 
of long disillusionment. Bibliographers are ready to 
automate, but we are still waiting. 

Marguerite D. Bloxom 
General Reading Rooms Division 


HLAS: THE ROAD TO AUTOMATION 

An internationally respected reference tool, the 
Handbook of Latin American Studies (HLAS) is a 
selected, annotated, annual bibliography about 900 
pages in length. Roughly 120 scholars, who serve as 
contributing editors, prepare the text as a labor of 
love for the Hispanic Division of the Library. HLAS 
records a wealth of bibliographical information on 
significant published writings in and about Latin 
Ame r ic a. 

Published in alternating social sciences and 
humanities volumes, the handbook covers a wide range of 
subjects, including anthropology, economics, education, 
geography, government and politics, art, film/folklore, 
history, language, literature, music, and philosophy. 
To facilitate use of the bibliography, four indexes are 
included: abbreviations and acronyms; titles of 
journals indexed; subjects; and authors. 

In a cooperative effort, the handbook is published 
by the University of Texas Press at Austin and the 
Library of Congress. Texas Press was chosen as our 
most recent publisher because of its renown in the 
field of Latin American publishing, its demonstrated 
experience in the use of computerized photocomposition 
techniques, and its ability to successfully market the 
series. 

Production: The Manual Mode 

The handbook was prepared manually until production 
of volume 42. A core of contributing editors was 
selected to critique material for inclusion. All 
material sent to the editors was processed manually, 
e.g., slipping (selecting) monographs and/or serials in 
various Library divisions; routing items to the 
Hispanic Division; typing and preparing bibliographic 
citations; typing charge slips for books on 
inter-library loan; xeroxing and mailing magazine 
articles; typing printer's copies of manuscript; 
assigning item numbers to each entry by either stamping 
with a numbering machine or writing the number by hand; 
and arranging sections of text in chronological, 
topical, or geographical order. Unfortunately, the 
list goes on and on and on. 

The most tedious of the manual procedures was the 
typing of the four indexes. The subject index was 
particularly difficult because of its size: managing to 
keep about 10,000 3x5" cards in order in a box without 
ever dropping it, proved to be a tremendous challenge. 
Compilation began by reviewing the subject headings 
assigned by the editors and then comparing them to the 
Library o f Congress Subject Headings . Each subject 
heading was typed on a card and filed alphabetically. 
The file grew to enormous proportions. When all the 
subject entries were completed, cross-reference were 
added. The cards were proofed a number of times and, 
after the final time, each card was stamped with a 
number to ensure numerical order, as well as 
alphabetical. The other indexes were completed with 
the same tedium. 

Preparing the text of the book for submission to 
the publisher had always been done the same--it was 
typed, since we thought there was no other way. The 
difficulty was not the typing at the Library's 
editorial office, but the subsequent printer's 
typesetting. This almost always created additional 
errors that had to be caught (or perhaps not caught) at 
the various stages of proofing. 


55 












MISCELLANY 


After years of working in the manual mode, the 
staff decided there had to be a better way. Voilk, 
automation! 

Automation 

As early as 1979, there had been discussion of 
automating the handbook. In that year, the Automated 
Systems Office established the Committee on Standards 
for Bibliographic Output Formats (COMBAT) as an 
interdepartmental working group to specify standard 
output format for publications generated from 
machine-readable files. The Bibliography Subgroup of 
COMBAT prepared the standard for automated 
bibliographies produced at LC. The standard was 
designed to meet the combined needs of all divisions 
that prepare bibliographies for print or computer 
output microform. It was anticipated that 
bibliographies would be produced from already existing 
MARC records with little or no editing. 

The handbook was selected over other bibliographies 
as the pilot for the automated bibliography project 
because: 


1. It is an ongoing bibliography that has been 
produced in LC for more than 40 years, thereby meeting 
the requirements of ASO that the pilot bibliography be 
recurring regularly and that its longevity be assured; 

2. It has an in-house staff of five full-time 
persons, three of whom are professionals, all of whom 
have worked with the bibliography for a number of years 
and therefore are able to define their needs; 

3. It is a multilingual publication that requires 
regular use of diacritics; 

4. It covers a wider spectrum of materials than 
does any other ongoing bibliography in the Research 
Services Department; 

5. It has made significant progress in the 
development of a thesaurus for its subject index; 

6. Because of its extensive annotations and listing 
of serials, the handbook has more discrete fields, 
subfields, and hierarchies than do many bibliographies. 

The present production procedures were studied and 
documented. Existing Library of Congress systems and 
software available for purchase were surveyed as 
possible alternatives. The desire to use existing 
cataloging data whenever possible and the ability to 
rely on familiar online searching techniques made MUMS 
the choice for records input and updating. 


Currently, MUMS software is being modified and 
tested for the first release of the automated 
bibliography project. This application is unique in 
allowing creation of bibliographic records for many 
types of materials - -books, serials, maps, journal 
articles, films, music, and sound recordings—on a 
single file. 

"Automation" 


In 1981, with volume 43, steps toward automation 
were begun by generating printouts of bibliographic 
citations from MUMS records. This procedure eliminated 
typing some of the citations. Bibliographic 
information, for which there was no record, i.e., books 
not cataloged at LC and serial articles, were still 
typed. Also, with that volume, the four indexes were 
produced on Lexitron diskettes. (The diskettes made 
the job easier for filing purposes, but did not allow 
for automatic alphabetizing. Complete automation will 


provide that feature.) The information was typed on 
diskettes and forwarded to the press. With a bit of 
conversion at the publisher, photo-ready galleys were 
produced from the diskettes without any retyping, 
saving much time and effort. 


Since production of galleys from diskettes proved 
to be successful, we then tried typing the entire book 
on diskettes. It worked! A coding system was devised 
to instruct the printer on proper fonts and format. By 
using the diskettes, no retyping is required, and that 
means new errors are not generated. The stride from 
the manual mode to serai-automation has greatly improved 
the production efforts of both the handbook staff and 
the publisher. 

Much progress has been made toward automating the 
production of the handbook, but we—and others in 
Research Services who have bibliographical 
projects—look forward impatiently to the first release 
of the automated bibliography project. 

Alfreda H. Payne 
Hispanic Division 


THE AUTOMATED PAMPHLET PROJECT 

In his 1867 Report to Congress, Librarian Ainsworth 
Spofford triumphantly announced the Library's 
acquisition of Peter Force's rich Americana collection. 
In the past the Library's role had been limited to that 
of a Congressional reference library with few national 
pretensions, but with the addition of the Force volumes 
the Library acquired a reputation as a major American 
research institution on a par with the Boston and New 
York public libraries. 

Force, a former editor of the National Journal , 
mayor of the District of Columbia, and one of the 
country's earliest historical editors, amassed an 
enormous group of primary research material to support 
his investigations for The American Archives , a 
documentary history of the American Revolution. The 
eminent 19th century American historian Benjamin 
Lossing declared Force's library to be the best of its 
kind in the country when he used it at Force' s house 
before the Civil War. 


The Pamphlet Collection 

A significant number of the Force pamphlets are 
part of the 30,000 items in the Bound Pamphlet 
Collection in the Rare Book and Special Collections 
Division, documenting many of the most important 
aspects of the Anglo-American experience during the 
late 18th and early 19th centuries. As Bernard Bailyn 
determined in his Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 
1750-17 76 , "It was in this form—as pamphlets—that 
much of the most important and characteristic writing 
of the American Revolution appeared. For the 
Revolutionary generation as for its predecessors back 
to the early sixteenth century, the pamphlet had 
peculiar virtues as a medium of communication." 


56 
















MISCELLANY 


Spofford, aware Chat the usefulness of the Force 
material would be seriously compromised without 
adequate processing, stated in 1867: "The immense mass 
of newspapers, and other periodicals, pamphlets, bound 
and unbound, maps, and other materials acquired with 
this [Force's] library... will be prepared for the 
catalog as soon as the titles of the bound books, now 
nearly completed, are disposed of." 

B ibliographic Control 


The speed of cataloging the Force collection which 
Spofford envisioned has slowed considerably during the 
intervening one hundred eighteen years. Today, random 
sampling indicates that fewer than fifty percent of the 
Bound Pamphlet Collection in the Rare Book and Special 
Collections Division can be identified by searching the 
Main Card Catalog. Those volumes represented are 
usually second or third copies of books existing 
elsewhere in the Library; unusual works are 
unrepresented. Few of the pamphlets are listed in the 
Library's Official Shelflist, fewer still in the 
division's shelflist, and fewer than one percent can be 
found on MARC. Incredibly, a large percentage of the 
collection consists of books not recorded by any 
institution in the National Union Catalog . 


Looking for Solutions 


My early investigations to determine a way to make 
the collection available to researchers ended after I 
encountered apparently insurmountable obstacles. The 
Special Materials Cataloging Division had insufficient 
staff to handle such a large volume of titles in a 
timely fashion, and the Automated Systems Office was 
unable to commit itself to any project which did not 
receive the highest departmental priority. At first 
glance the situation seemed comparable to being asked 
to compete in the Indianapolis 500 in a car which not 
only lacked wheels but an engine as well. The chance 
of success seemed remote. 


MLC Chosen 


became clear that this could be no self-contained, 
internal project. Each step involved Library-wide 
concerns, and many, such as the computerized coding 
level, dealt with national bibliographic issues. At 
times, the questions concerning previous cataloging 
codes, past shelflisting practices, and existing 
computer formats seemed insurmountable. The fact that 
some pamphlets were entered in PREMARC, others only in 
the Main Card Catalog, a few in MARC, and a large 
number had no existing entries in any catalog 
complicated the efforts of the group to devise a method 
which would be able to produce a complete shelflist 
automatically. 


It is troubling that it has taken more than a 
century to arrive at this point. During the last 
twenty years, the Library has become the undisputed 
leader in library computer applications, but the delay 
in tackling problems such as the Force pamphlets is 
indicative of a disquieting attitude which I suspect is 
not limited to the Library of Congress. Automation at 
many institutions might be compared to a powerful wave 
sweeping across a pond, creating much activity on the 
surface, but leaving deeper water undisturbed. Much 
attention has been devoted to current technical 
processing problems, i.e., the cataloging of new books, 
but older collections' difficulties, such as those 
posed by the Force material and left unsolved by 
previous generations, have received disproportionately 
less energy. 

C. P. Snow observed in 1959 in The Two Cultures and 
the Scientific Revolution that there had grown in 
society two groups whose values markedly differed, the 
scientific technologists and the cultural 
intellectuals. On a microcosmic level such a division 
exists today at the Library of Congress. The curator, 
devoted to interpretation and history, and those 
concerned primarily with automation in technical 
processing, sometimes fail to arrive at common goals or 
agendas. Both groups share equal blame for a failure 
to communicate. 


But, a possible solution appeared after I made my 
first attempts. The collection could be brought under 
a form of bibliographic control either by an outside 
contractor or by appropriate internal Library personnel 
using Minimal Level Cataloging, these approaches 
requiring no software development by the Automated 
Systems Office. Minimal Level Cataloging would require 
that the Rare Book and Special Collections Division 
forego such important needs as subject cataloging of 
the pamphlets and online access to imprint information, 
but, in return, we would achieve three important goals: 
(1) assuring that researchers and staff would have 
author/title access to the collection; (2) providing a 
complete shelflist; and (3) identifying in at least a 
rudimentary way the large number of unrecorded 
pamphlets. 


In order to guide the development of the project, 
an informal Library-wide working group was established. 
We completed a pilot project in August 1984 with the 
assistance of the Descriptive Cataloging Division. 
Presently, two publishers are ready to make proposals 
for publishing all or part of the pamphlets in 
hardcover or microform. 


Problems 


In spite of the 
the group to design 


strenuous efforts of the members of 
an uncomplicated system, it quickly 


The Automated Pamphlet Project is one small bridge 
between these two worlds, and its lessons can prove 
instructive. Much remains to be accomplished. In the 
Rare Book and Special Collections Division there are 
enormous numbers of broadsides, pamphlets, and books 
which cannot be found on either the computer files or 
in the Main Card Catalog. Many of these materials are 
in research collections which are central to the 
Library's mission. Though it is necessary that 
automation efforts be vitally concerned with improving 
workflow and efficiency of current operations, these 
goals should not be pursued at the expense of improving 
the access to important collections which have 
received inadequate treatment in the past. Whatever 
position the Library occupies in American culture today 
is due for the most part to its widespread image as the 
center for research on and the premier repository for 
significant printed documents and manuscripts of 
American history. To ignore in any way the important 
older research material in the Library's collections is 
to run the risk of compromising the identity of this 
institution. 

James W. Gilreath 

Rare Book and Special Collections Division 

[Since this article was written, the Automated Pamphlet 
Project was implemented. Ed.] 


57 















































































































CIP 
Pi^OC ! 
O873 


K °hlmei ei: 


N 146 86 
















\0 *A 

' * ^ 








o « o , 





^ ^ °^ 0 

5> A* % * •"»’*' ^>' 

% V * Y *CV ,0 AVCj* V' 

u & ''m£/Ko \ A # • 

• <A J 

* <*> A* • 




- A •• 

_ V 

o5 °«* V^Siy®^ *° ^ - vuv ^ * o 

o *.,,* ^0 \ "oho* O ... 

- -* A. % a" 1 

\P_ ,0 


o *> ^ 






* % ^ ; 

: v^ v • i 

>? » A O' - NSil'rn-i^ o aVA. 

" * „V * \.Vr * 'V ^ 
,0^ c°JL°-». ^o, 

C* 


^ * A s s . /V- -V ▼ V * ^ V\ A < - - 

V * v f5j©y. ^ ^ ^ <£ 

* **? 9 ^BMk- vv :SMVAi °i 

» a v< V “1W; -O'V VflBPtr - a A *°h 

4y on ^gr^r« -nv 'X. *^%if!§^4* 'v • 

A <A '°.A .0* \5. A <» 

& , i ' » . •<£. 0 v 6 0 " 0 « *^0 jA « *■ ' » ^ 

V ,<• ° A ^ 

** 0 « -5^Il\. 


\> r 

* *o A <V 

^ 0 ^ , t ' • * ,yj 

\ »b/ ^ • 

; xQvv *v.^K>: ^5°<6 * 

_ ~,j. r *J* r\ ^£* ■• N~ _ ‘ JPyJlr ^* a **, *^mwj 

**'.,i«’ a0 ^V a ^ <1 '£. n o 0 ^ C>^ £° ^ ‘' D »° 

- -^., ^ -'Mm-, : Mm- V< 

• ^ ; -OT?* /\'*ggk ^ w /" j 

ry L° " 0 + ^O AV . V ' a ^ *$ (y c ° H ° 

... ^ -r+ * o' 


w 

- 4 A 

•° k c !rL 0>r ^ ^°-, t* 

->» A •> 
o V 


T V G v • 

' * ^P, ^ o' 

* * * ° 


O “ * . , ■» *’ a 0° ^ % 0 M 0 9 o,'* 5 ' ^ * • H • * $P - ^v 

% .o* s»**% \> „»*o. jy ^ v % 

'° °^!5fe r 'M&whl V'v Vv 

> * 4 -V * 4o<%r^XV .- <• <v "* * ^///JT-tTWXW 


o O > 

Js9 


\j. # fv (p» 

^ ‘mo 5 / o 

, *> V *1*°* c\. A’J 

^°C V ^ " 

: 0v V ^ o 

s/ o 




= a °a. ’'?2ms': 

• r o *a£^*v* A 0 

<^ V 5 • • » 


.or 0 » M » 
0 


fJt *■ ^ <1. T. aA V 

» a^wA ° o ^ ^c,a ;Qj^y <> ^y y ° 

- o aV*\ * c. < ^' p o. -* « .A'** ot. 

'MSS? * <y °«er > 5^4 A*’ ■» oj 

>'*??••*' A <A *'o.A 4 .(y \5 ^'s* 1 A < 

A % . v * • „ <f> 0 v o« o . ^ A % . V »»„ <f>^ 

^ A* . C .’jsSSW- ° .r ^ 


*0*1 


+ 

’y 



6 C^vP 

* V, o' 





;* -jP* 

A .«J4* *. % 

,N <, cfvOsAUN^ * "7 


» x * A 





". ^ 0* 



.. * * <0 


* & ** • 



O O 


* A o'! 

A v %> *°' k * ,A <* A* ^> ' 

„Cr .•'V* / t »"% <i> 

0 ♦W^*. o . 4 * * ' u 4 



* .A A o 

* 4* % * 


4 O. 

»^ *<v v> 


\ #C “° 0 ^ 

\ ^ / *^j?A°<, ^ A v * 

&' 'MWm 0 * W ° 



'>*_ A 0 


b V 




\ V 

v .^C‘. °-i 


% V ‘ * * 



V*" , o’ ^°° %> *" 1# ’ ^ 

• ^ a’ .**»*. ^ ^ a v 4*^ °* 

r % ^ 

° a a, o ?• : 

- <* a^ ^ **-^P4irv A v *<? & * /* 

'- - * A O ♦TfyT* .o'* \d * A 

<£> A . t I 8 






o ^*A -' 

°^> ° « 0 A 0 <J> * » 1 A> X 

*<y t’'°- 'a> V 

—«• ^ ,<£* *VWV“ ^ 

r </>C? 


fc \V^v .4 

>* <£>’ o'VJf&W 1 * aV *$*. • 

% <LV <£a • * A V V* . *> 

<0 ^O • A. ^ A \^ ^V* '/ t # S . ^ 

q ^y & qV t • L # a -f c, 0 M ° * *p (y • t 1 # # ^ 

o 



o V 


^ 0 X 


^o ^ • 


** 

° 

c5 O j 

4 O V ♦ A v TV O 

L^ ri» • 4 ^ V s 


'» "W 


\P„ .c,^ * 

J> v 




, » • 


V t A>*% C\ .< 
- •?. A ,'*&&*'. \ £ 

r O' <? 


.^...™.« i 0 -^,. d°* - 

V \ v ,.., °^‘°-°" ,/ ,.. V *•”■’ ... °°<-’*“■" 

•—. *«. ^ w * 

■^ /t ™^: A v^_ , 

<L V "rU ”•''^'>^ V .4 ' ^.V' ^ °.' v ^^\r' J .* <V • 

A G , ^ '“.A A <#.*''•.** ^ C> 'O.A A. <* % ^Tr*' ,G V ’O 'o'. A* A <v 

.S «, ^5amW^ V . 0 *. ° ^ ^rj'. C *&/l7 %° ^ 




°. , 

; v 

* .0** tL *'° • *" * A O ^TIT-' G v "o. ■'• .T*' A 

0 °o ^ % / ••"-•* 

* mM?*, - -s , V 0 . 

. «** o' 


* 4? oVJ&V- * AV 



*b ^ : 


‘ ^ • » 

3. * o . o ’ .0 


>,° ^ 

A* 




* O . 1 ^ 

’ *6 / ° 


-JH^* -, 

'^. OH»' ^ °°<^ "*0 M o" 0 0 

V .''•o, A> \> AV^ O. .<V a ^ * O . <> 


A <" <* <G^ *0, v ^ <V 

AV C 0 " 0 ^ <^. 0^ ."'». ^O A % 0 °«0„ 

1> • _rW<\ . ** *r r* . *■ _ /v>7^ *r O .1 W’ • r-^XV ^ 

t> 4 \ «. c\\\\\n4 v* 


A> 

*■ <P V • 



* A V ^<, ' 

* if ^ 


y • *> 

° ^ A^ 

", ■ 





c> y 

°*u * ° * 0 A 

‘^6 AV ^ V v tLVL% c\ . 0 V 

° ^ *i^\lf/^ 0 o ^ A* * 

: ^ v v*v 



G'J? 



°, V, 

: °WmW* *y\> ^ ^ a j -„i 

y ^ ^ ^ **SkV*P' <& & ^ ***m£rS & *\i> • * v~* 

Jp c> *o. k * A <, s 4 .(? o *°.L* A <\. 4r ^,*' ^ -o.T* A 

^ • *> # 9 4 ^O _ jfi 0° N S 0^ • L 1 9 -9 ^O A^ o°* °* ■ < ^ s « »• 1 • 4 ^O 

• *bS • 


4 O. 

2> ^ 


♦ o « O 9 ^p ^ * « , 1 * 

> ,0 A* O' > V vLVl' 




V 


.* 


.A <a ^ 4 ,G^ 'o.a A <h Vtv** ,G^ ^ 'o. A A <> .G^ 

* 6 O * O . A , t ' * . A c 0» C< <« A . t ' 0 4 ^ 4 A, OHO, <« A L«. 

► «t #-f s ^V4 ^ *T . O i A/lO- 4 O _ 4 lV A .0 i yi/lo 4 O. .*X . 4» n I y, . 


*<" A v 

-: ^ v 


1 • aV*^ -* 

^ A V 


/. * »f* 4 

^0" ^ * »<•.•’ ^ O A 

0 A * °' > V ^' !oLa 

; ^ a* * 

\ vv _° 



o N 0 


4° ^ ^ . 

°* o° *^rr/-' 


$v <$> 

y ^ 0 o^. ^ 
































































